EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Halcyon on November 30, 2017, 09:04:08 am
-
Being a naturally conservative person, especially when it comes to money, I've been very sceptical of Crypto in the past but have recently moved over to the "believers" and indeed the "investors" camp, now that I can see the potential it has (if implemented correctly).
I don't own any Bitcoin, but I have just started investing in others (mostly Ripple, Ethereum and Litecoin).
I'd love to hear from those who have had a more experience than I do with Crypto, what lessons have you learnt so far? I mean, we'd all love to go back and invest in some Bitcoin a few years back, but that ship has sailed.
-
But the old rules about big gains going hand in hand with big risks (and losses) still applies. It's a bubble and all bubbles burst.
Absolutely, however I think in the case of Ripple (currently priced at ~AUD$0.35), the risk of any significant losses are low but the potential gains (if Bitcoin is anything to go by) are enormous. I can only lose as much as I've put in, but I can gain orders of magnitude more. I'm not suggesting just go for the cheap coins, I think implementation is important, anyone can create a Cryptocurrency, whether it has any long-term viability is a different story.
-
Yes, most volatile currency ever, prone to hacking, prone to "exchange website screwed you over", not accepted in the shops, and it is just a big ponzi scheme in the first place. What could possibly go wrong.
And humanity wastes 83TWh every day year into this.
And humanity wastes 83GWh every day into this.
They should just make it illegal.
-
anyone can create a Cryptocurrency, whether it has any long-term viability is a different story.
Similar to Linux distros.
-
Yes, most volatile currency ever, prone to hacking, prone to "exchange website screwed you over", not accepted in the shops, and it is just a big ponzi scheme in the first place. What could possibly go wrong.
And humanity wastes 83TWh every day into this.
They should just make it illegal.
Volatile, yes, but so are commodities and other aspects of the stock market. It's almost the same kind of game.
"Prone to hacking" I disagree with (with a caveat). I think a well designed Crypto with the proper backing of banks and some major companies (which some have already), it's no more prone to hacking than relying on a bank to tell you how much money you have in your account. Sure, bank savings are guaranteed by the government (up to a certain amount), but what's to say a specific type of Crypto won't be in the future? There is a reason why some pretty big banks in Australia (ANZ and Westpac being two of them) are looking into Crypto for their own use and I think that should be supported.
Not accepted in the shops, sure, not as much as cash, but I have colleagues paying their credit card bills off with crypto, that in itself is pretty damn good (if you can make a profit), considering how long Cryptocurrency has been around for.
As for Ponzi schemes and making it illegal, that's tin-foil hat thinking. Governments all over the world are recognising it as a legitimate currency (and tax you accordingly). In Australia, the government get two sucks of the sav; You're charged GST on the purchase price and then again in capital gains tax if you were to cash it back out.
-
Yes, most volatile currency ever, prone to hacking, prone to "exchange website screwed you over", not accepted in the shops, and it is just a big ponzi scheme in the first place. What could possibly go wrong.
And humanity wastes 83TWh every day into this.
They should just make it illegal.
I love how the first real Bitcoin currency exchange (Mt. Gox) was actually a website originally dedicated to buying, selling and trading Magic the Gathering cards (hence the acronym, MtGOX, or Magic the Gathering Online Exchange). It was run by some dude out of his mom’s basement. He converted it from Magic to Bitcoin pretty early in Bitcoin’s public history. Within six months he was handling hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of transactions.
Think about that for a minute, people were literally saying, “Wait, you’re just a neck beard in a basement? ... Here’s a certified check for $10,000, please send me Bitcoins, kthx!”
If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about Bitcoin’s hardcore fan base, maybe this will:
There was also the guy who died mining Bitcoins early on, after he filled his tiny, non-air conditioned bedroom up with GPUs and power supplies, in the middle of the summer, during a heatwave. Then died from heatstroke in his sleep.
The worst part of Bitcoin is that it’s popular for the wrong reasons. I think that having a decentralized crypto currency isn’t actually a bad idea for some scenarios, however to really be useful it needs to A) Have value by itself and B) Not require the “coins” to be “mined”.
Any crypto currency could satisfy point A, however (realistically) in order to do so, you’d have to get people to use it to pay for goods and services. That’s a hard sell considering the fact that “dirty capitalists fiat money” is already so well entrenched. That’s mainly because it works well enough, is anonymous and untraceable when used as cash, convenient when used as credit or debit and can be used as an investment vehicle when placed in stocks or bonds.
The fact that Bitcoin requires exchanges where you can transfer from Bitcoin to real money and back is proof that it’s not a real currency, but instead nothing more than day trading for people who think Atlas Shrugged is erotic literature.
That’s just my two cents, err, 0.000000021B.
-
How could anybody price goods in a currency like bitcoin , the best you can do is pick some "exchange" and take it's current orderbook and apply some fudge factor and cross your fingers, with the curent volatility your prices would be changing significantly on a daily, hourly basis even.
Bitcoin (etc) can only be an actual usable currency when it's "value" is stable. If it's not a currency, what is it's actual value built on, IMHO mostly baseless hype and the rest is in it's value as a currency laundering and blackmarket payments system, I'm not sure how I feel about supporting that.
-
Always think it's funny how people argue the value of crypto is based on 'nothing'. This is true, off course, but it's no different from any other currency. The days that currency was fully backed by gold is long gone. Not to mention that gold is exactly the same. Why is it so expensive? Because it is rare and people want it. Like crypto.
That said: when it's a bit chilly in my office, I turn on an ethereum miner. Works like a charm. True story.
-
I'd love to hear from those who have had a more experience than I do with Crypto, what lessons have you learnt so far?
1) Buy and HOLD.
2) Don't panic and sell on the dips, just use it as an opportunity to buy more.
3) Serious money can be made day/week/month trading the fluctuations. Buy on dips, sell on high, don't panic if it keeps dipping, but more.
4) If doing 3) then you stand to gain more percentage swings with the altcoins.
-
I'd love to hear from those who have had a more experience than I do with Crypto, what lessons have you learnt so far?
1) Buy and HOLD.
2) Don't panic and sell on the dips, just use it as an opportunity to buy more.
3) Serious money can be made day/week/month trading the fluctuations. Buy on dips, sell on high, don't panic if it keeps dipping, but more.
4) If doing 3) then you stand to gain more percentage swings with the altcoins.
It’s a shame there wasn’t already a well established place where people could do this sort of thing before crypto currency came around.
Imagine some sort of market where people could use real money to invest in things. Like the stock of a company, or various commodities. This market could also act a speculative vehicle of sorts for the currency in question.
Too bad there isn’t such a thing. [emoji20]
-
And humanity wastes 83TWh every day into this.
I find that figure highly suspect. :bullshit:
The UK, on average, consumes 0.83 TWh of electricity every day. The whole world's daily energy consumption (all sources, not just electricity) is about 400 TWh/day. Are cryptocurrencies really consuming the electricity that about 100 medium sized countries do? Or using over 1/5 of the whole world's energy supply? I think not.
-
And humanity wastes 83TWh every day into this.
I find that figure highly suspect. :bullshit:
The UK, on average, consumes 0.83 TWh of electricity every day. The whole world's daily energy consumption (all sources, not just electricity) is about 400 TWh/day. Are cryptocurrencies really consuming the electricity that about 100 medium sized countries do? Or using over 1/5 of the whole world's energy supply? I think not.
Well, apparently, I cannot read tables. It is GWh per day.
But it is a crazy high value, even considering, that the entire thing can plummet on a moment's notice.
-
How could anybody price goods in a currency like bitcoin , the best you can do is pick some "exchange" and take it's current orderbook and apply some fudge factor and cross your fingers, with the curent volatility your prices would be changing significantly on a daily, hourly basis even.
A long time ago I was involved with businesses that relied entirely on supplies that were traded in currencies that were not their native ones, and those supplies were not commodities you could buy futures in. They were just as affected by volatility of 'real' currencies as in the scenario you outline. Heck, there are people who make their money by trading (betting) on the volatility of 'real' currencies.
If anything, because the current cryptocurrencies rely on real inputs (computing hardware and energy) they in theory have more intrinsic value than fiat currencies do. Obviously in practice they behave much more like fiat currencies with high price volatility - pick your own example 'real' currency that fits the bill.
-
83TWh? It is not that bad. But still Bitcoin uses a lot of power:
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
This has to do with the Achilles heel of bitcoin, the blockchain. While a brilliant concept, adding transactions to the blockchain in decentralized computers everywhere (of which 'mining' is a necessary part) takes an enormous amount of power and time. This limits the maximum number of transactions per second to unrealistic values (~10/s), where any bank worth its salt can handle 10000's transactions per second.
I very much like the idea of Crypto as nobody's currency (no influence of states, central banks, etc) but I think that the current implementation of Bitcoin is not going to cut it in the long run.
Nice gamble if you were in time though.
-
Bitcoin is not he only currency:
https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption
-
I'd love to hear from those who have had a more experience than I do with Crypto, what lessons have you learnt so far?
1) Buy and HOLD.
2) Don't panic and sell on the dips, just use it as an opportunity to buy more.
3) Serious money can be made day/week/month trading the fluctuations. Buy on dips, sell on high, don't panic if it keeps dipping, but more.
4) If doing 3) then you stand to gain more percentage swings with the altcoins.
Sounds like a poor man's (in metaphor only) stock market where you don't actually invest into anything. Just ride the mystical Bitcoin wave.
Honestly, it's a cashgrab for everybody involved, just like the stock market. I've researcher it, but don't have the time nor funds to try to ride the magical wave. Perhaps we are headed towards a second dotcom bubble, but this time cryptocurrency based?
I personally don't harp myself on the illegal uses of Bitcoin, as with every useful thing, someone will want to break a law with it. I'd just be careful with whatever you do. There are places built to screw you over real hard with this stuff.
-
I don't own any Bitcoin, but I have just started investing in others (mostly Ripple, Ethereum and Litecoin).
I think the word you are looking for is "speculating", not "investing". ::)
-
I know from our local stock market. Whenever a stock is being trumpeted heavily in the media, people jump on the bandwagon, and soon thereafter, that stock crashes. Looks like the major investors of that stock do the trumpeting before they decide to sell off their entire holdings. And the purpose of the trumpeting is to get a last minute upwards movement on that stock.
This process is called "sucker shaking" here :-DD
I'm suspecting that the same holds true for bitcoin. It will soon crash, and crash hard ...
-
I got into cryptocurrency mining about 2 years ago. In that time, it has helped my electronics hobby pay for itself, and a month ago I put together a solar powered mining setup to help my best friend, getting me a little fame in the process.
-
At its root, it is a matter of trust, do you trust your government not to print money and erode its value? Take into account that you also have to trust the US federal government as the USD is the world's current reserve coin and for the last 10 years, they were printing money in an effort to erode its value on purpose.
Or, do you trust a decentralized coin, which cannot be made easily as it requires certain effort to create.
-
At its root, it is a matter of trust, do you trust your government not to print money and erode its value? Take into account that you also have to trust the US federal government as the USD is the world's current reserve coin and for the last 10 years, they were printing money in an effort to erode its value on purpose.
Or, do you trust a decentralized coin, which cannot be made easily as it requires certain effort to create.
Indeed. This is all you need to know about currency. This applies to cryptocurrency too.
Zimbabwean buying bread...
(https://i.imgur.com/lH3qfK4.jpg)
I work in fintech and it's fucking scary some of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes.
-
At its root, it is a matter of trust, do you trust your government not to print money and erode its value? Take into account that you also have to trust the US federal government as the USD is the world's current reserve coin and for the last 10 years, they were printing money in an effort to erode its value on purpose.
Or, do you trust a decentralized coin, which cannot be made easily as it requires certain effort to create.
Then why use a crypto currency whose value is directly tied to that “eroded capitalist scum fiat dollar”? That makes little sense to me.
Another question for the crypto currency experts: What happens when, eventually, processors (CPUs, GPUs, ASICs, whatever) speed up to the point that mining a coin requires no effort? Won’t that erode the value of the coins?
-
I know from our local stock market. Whenever a stock is being trumpeted heavily in the media, people jump on the bandwagon, and soon thereafter, that stock crashes. Looks like the major investors of that stock do the trumpeting before they decide to sell off their entire holdings. And the purpose of the trumpeting is to get a last minute upwards movement on that stock.
This process is called "sucker shaking" here :-DD
I'm suspecting that the same holds true for bitcoin. It will soon crash, and crash hard ...
Around here it is called 'pump and dump'.
When you see ads in every paper screaming to 'buy gold', it's time to sell. The advertisers are trying to see their gold to you. When everything looks like 'gloom and doom' (2008), it's time to buy.
What is behind Bitcoin? Behind most world currencies there is something of value. Gold in some cases, 'full faith and credit' in others. But there is something supporting the currency. Bitcoin has nothing except a volatile exchange rate.
Anybody remember the Tulips?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
-
It is nominated in USD because, as stated above, USD is the current, most common trade currency in the world. In the past, it used to be the British pound, in the future, who knows? There are efforts made by some countries to establish a different reserve currency.
If CPU/GPU/ASICS catch up, the hashes can and do, grow more complex. Also, define no effort, there is no such thing as a free launch, and compare it with the cost of 'printing' a dollar (hint: There is no paper involved).
-
Behind most world currencies there is something of value. Gold in some cases, 'full faith and credit' in others.
To the best of my knowledge no countries' currency operates on a gold standard any more. The nearest any country comes is Lebanon, which has gold reserves equivalent to around 50% of the Lebanese money supply. Most major currency's home countries have at best 5% of gold reserves versus money supply, some much less. But all the aforementioned are nevertheless still fiat currencies, not on a gold standard of any sort.
'Faith' in a fiat currency can evaporate overnight; that's no more substantial than the faith people place in cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. If anything 'negotiable' could be said to back most major currencies, it is in fact debt; at least the cryptocurrencies have a "proof of work done" which implies the expenditure of real physical, fungible resources.
-
I applaud the idea behind cryptocurrencies: That is, a way to free us from the grip of the central banker/big bank cabal that has been redistributing wealth to the 1% for decades now.
However, Bitcoin is currently in the throws of a speculative bubble and is not yet serving the purpose for which is was originally intended.
The original goal, as I understand it, was to limit the total able to be mined (? 21 million) and by the nature of the algorhithm the mining become progressively more difficult. In this way it is meant to mimic precious metals.
However, human greed is an unstoppable force - so now with forks and a flood of ICOs, I'm not sure that original intent has any chance of surviving.
As a long term repository of wealth it has some advantages compared to traditional fiat currencies, but it cannot match an immutable metal with thousands of years of history in that role. It is also important that it depends entirely on an intact electrical grid and functioning internet.
As a speculative investment which is what it has become - it is in a bubble that now surpasses all prior ones, making tulip and .com bubbles look tame.
Dave's advice above to accumulate Bitcoin may pan out. But it is a pure speculation play at this point - you're picking red or black on a roulette wheel.
-
My 2p worth...
The liquidity is in BTC so that would be the only sensible place to invest at present. (Etherium is almost an order of magnitude less liquidity)
However BTC has absolutely ZERO intrinsic value, it not convertible/fungible to anything useful, so it's value is only in the prevailing supply of buyers and sellers.
As I understand it the way exchanges work is you can only sell your BTC for real world currency iff there is a buyer at that exchange who wants to do the opposite so liquidity at that exchange is crucial. i.e. the day people decide to sell, the buy side liquidity dries up and the price collapses.
So... whilst the lemmings are heading into BTC you can ride the wave but make sure you sell before they reach the cliff.
... and bubbles do exist.... tulips, carbon credits, .com shares, etc.... and people did lose >90% when those bubbles collapsed.
-
who pays for the cryptocurrency infrastructure, servers, support and power and so on
In terms of bitcoin, AIUI I think I'm putting this in reasonable terms, the users, who pay to the miners, who effectively process the transactions.
Every time you transfer some bitcoin from you to somebody else, you nominate a fee you are willing to pay for that transaction^1, this fee is something like an auction bid, the miners pick off the highest bids first and process those transactions, the fee you nominated goes to the miners for their work.
This is currently a big problem with Bitcoin, because the fee for processing a transaction is ridiculous.
According to https://bitcoinfees.info/ you are looking at about $4.00 USD - that's regardless of the value you transfer, so if you pay $3.50 USD worth of bitcoin for a cup of coffee, you have to add on about $4.00 if you want that payment to go through within about an hour.
Clearly this is an untenable situation, and there are ideas for solving it, but... the solutions all at least erode some raison-d'etre of bitcoin I think it would be fair to say.
With all the new coins being created what puts a limit on the number of different coins that can be created?
Natural selection, survival of the fittest.
^1 Wallets will typically suggest fees based on how fast you want the transaction to happen, exchanges will typically enforce a (high) fee because they want transactions to happen right away.
-
This is currently a big problem with Bitcoin, because the fee for processing a transaction is ridiculous.
According to https://bitcoinfees.info/ you are looking at about $4.00 USD - that's regardless of the value you transfer, so if you pay $3.50 USD worth of bitcoin for a cup of coffee, you have to add on about $4.00 if you want that payment to go through within about an hour.
Clearly this is an untenable situation, and there are ideas for solving it, but... the solutions all at least erode some raison-d'etre of bitcoin I think it would be fair to say.
With all the new coins being created what puts a limit on the number of different coins that can be created?
Natural selection, survival of the fittest.
Crypto clearly has value, but this is the point I don't understand. Bitcoin is essentially dead as a "daily use" coin, the fees are high, the transaction times are slow, and mining for the average user is not worth it. I suppose there is still value in large or overseas transactions (in place of a wire transfer for example).
But when there are ton of other alts that are: cheaper, faster, etc. it makes me wonder how long BTC will hold its lead. Being the first to utilize a new piece of technology is no guarantee of success.
-
What is behind Bitcoin? Behind most world currencies there is something of value. Gold in some cases, 'full faith and credit' in others. But there is something supporting the currency. Bitcoin has nothing except a volatile exchange rate.
There is nothing behind the vast majority of world currencies. The physical note has a guarantee that it is worth the amount of currency that's printed on it (a dollar bill is worth a dollar), but there is nothing holding the value of that dollar relative to the rest of the worlds' currencies, other than availability and people's faith in its future value. If the government decides to print a bunch more money, its value plummets relative to other world currencies. If a government's stability becomes questionable, the value of its currency plummets. Cryptocurrencies are basically the same...their exchange rate is based on availability and people's willingness to buy/sell, which in turn is based on their faith in its future value. Availability is also strictly controlled using different methods for different currencies.
-
So the operational costs of the infrastructure is not paid in the currency of that infrastructure. Interesting.
It is, for mining you are paid in BTC.
Wouldn't that then mean the transaction fee would be a security risk insofar as anonymity goes. Unless you paid cash of course. Can you do that?
Bitcoin is not anonymous, every transaction sent can be tracked. This is a common misconception.
There are steps you can take to attempt to remain anonymous, purchasing bitcoin in cash from a person/location you trust is one of those.
https://bitcoin.org/en/protect-your-privacy
I still think cryptocurrency is the preferred currency of seedy underworld activity like drugs, child porn and tax evasion all of which will eventually lead to government intervention. As we saw with China a month or two back. Cryptocurrency is very exposed to such intervention.
Along with everything I don't understand about it, what prevents that from happening? Apart from inertia due to lack of public outcry.
You could say the same about cash.
The government could destroy the value of cash if they wanted to (similar thing happened in India, where certain bills had to be traded in and are now worthless). Its just a lot harder with BTC, as its decentralized. You'd have to firewall the country, find and shutdown servers, etc.
-
So the operational costs of the infrastructure is not paid in the currency of that infrastructure. Interesting.
Sorry if you misunderstood me, I quoted the fees in a USD equivalent just for clarity, you set the fees in bitcoin, about 0.0004 bitcoins at the present average fees (change wildly).
-
I'd love to hear from those who have had a more experience than I do with Crypto, what lessons have you learnt so far?
1) Buy and HOLD.
2) Don't panic and sell on the dips, just use it as an opportunity to buy more.
3) Serious money can be made day/week/month trading the fluctuations. Buy on dips, sell on high, don't panic if it keeps dipping, but more.
4) If doing 3) then you stand to gain more percentage swings with the altcoins.
Sounds like a poor man's (in metaphor only) stock market where you don't actually invest into anything. Just ride the mystical Bitcoin wave.
Correct.
And technically it's more like speculation than actual investment.
-
I wish I had gotten into it myself but that's risk for you, if you arn't willing to take risks you won't win.
-
Maybe this painting needs to be updated to include crypto-coins:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Flora%27s_Malle-wagen_van_Hendrik_Pot_1640.jpg)
Wagon of Fools by Hendrik Gerritsz Pot, 1637. Followed by Haarlem weavers who have abandoned their looms, blown by the wind and flying a flag emblazoned with tulips, Flora, goddess of flowers, her arms laden with tulips, rides to their destruction in the sea along with tipplers, money changers and the two-faced goddess Fortuna.
-
Maybe this painting needs to be updated to include crypto-coins:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Flora%27s_Malle-wagen_van_Hendrik_Pot_1640.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Flora%27s_Malle-wagen_van_Hendrik_Pot_1640.jpg)
Wagon of Fools by Hendrik Gerritsz Pot, 1637. Followed by Haarlem weavers who have abandoned their looms, blown by the wind and flying a flag emblazoned with tulips, Flora, goddess of flowers, her arms laden with tulips, rides to their destruction in the sea along with tipplers, money changers and the two-faced goddess Fortuna.
Almost there:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/cryptocurrency-is-anyone-on-board/?action=dlattach;attach=375394;image)
Although the "starting price" of bitcoin is slightly more arbitrary.
-
It is nominated in USD because, as stated above, USD is the current, most common trade currency in the world. In the past, it used to be the British pound, in the future, who knows? There are efforts made by some countries to establish a different reserve currency.
If CPU/GPU/ASICS catch up, the hashes can and do, grow more complex. Also, define no effort, there is no such thing as a free launch, and compare it with the cost of 'printing' a dollar (hint: There is no paper involved).
There are a few cryptocurrencies where the (main) proof of work does other useful work, such as Curecoin/Foldingcoin finding cures for cancer. Just imagine if there was actual motivation to make ASICs that cure cancer. (Albeit, from my understanding, the work involved is such that an ASIC would not have that much advantage over GPUs.)
-
There are a few cryptocurrencies where the (main) proof of work does other useful work, such as Curecoin/Foldingcoin finding cures for cancer. Just imagine if there was actual motivation to make ASICs that cure cancer. (Albeit, from my understanding, the work involved is such that an ASIC would not have that much advantage over GPUs.)
... for some very loose definitions of "useful work". If curing cancer was just a CPU time issue it would have addressed a long time ago, or we just need to wait a few years for the price of computation to halve a few times over.
The problem with digital "proof of work" is that the work keeps on getting easier as tech advances. What is hard work today is easy work tomorrow. Bitcoin attempted to solve this by making them progressively harder to mine.
IIRC it bitcoin keeps on increasing the number of zeros a hash must have, making it exponentially harder to mine them. I think it is every four years that this happens. Moore's law is often recast as the cost of computing halving every 18 months.
There is most likely some simple calculus that proves a crash will come - a bit like exponential economic growth, it can't last for ever.
Or maybe people will spend more time at intangible jobs making intangible wealth to pay for intangible goods that have near-zero cost of production, to make them feel productive and fuel ecconomic growth?. Like the people who test and tag all the office equipment to satisfy health and safety requirements, and then spend a portion of the money on cell phone apps or Netflix subscriptions.
Side Qn: Does "Jim's Test and Tagging" actually save more lives than it wastes? If so, why don't we have to have the electrical gear in our homes tested regularly?
-
At this stage the value of a bitcoin is largely dependent on the existence of someone willing to pay more. Why did it drop so much yesterday in just 3 hours? Why will the others match the growth that bitcoin has? I don't have any idea.
I do.
Bitcoin is a form of cash.
If it is to, one day, take over the role currently occupied by cash i.e. getting your salary in it and then running off to the supermarket etc and spending it, then there has to be a comparable value of it.
That is because, although the bits of paper are not worth anything much intrinsically, you need to have enough of it that people can receive it, keep it in their pockets for a little while, and then spend it.
On average, the amount of time that people hold traditional cash before spending it is about one week.
Of course some people only hold it for a day. Others stuff it under their mattress for years. But you can calculate the amount of things that are bought using cash in a day and the amount of cash that is in circulation, and it turns out that the the latter is about seven times bigger than the former.
Maybe bitcoin will follow about the same ratio. Maybe. Hard to say.
There is currently about $1.5 trillion (10^12) of USD cash. I don't know how much of others such as Euro etc. Lets say $5 trillion in total.
By design, there can only ever be 21 million bitcoins. Right now there are about 16.7 million of them (80% of what there can *ever* be), worth $160 billion.
That's about 10% of the value of US$ cash in circulation. That's actually pretty staggering. A year ago it was more like 1%.
Given that there is a hard limit on the number of bitcoins that can ever be produced, the only way the total value of bitcoin can expand to accommodate growing usage is by the value of each bitcoin increasing.
IF usage increases, which it may or may not.
-
IIRC it bitcoin keeps on increasing the number of zeros a hash must have, making it exponentially harder to mine them. I think it is every four years that this happens.
No.
The number of bitcoins awarded to the miner who finds the hash for the last ten minutes or so of transactions is halved every four years.
But the hash difficulty (the number of zeroes the hash must have) is adjusted every week. If all the active miners collectively are finding hashes and thus completing blocks in less than ten minutes on average then the hash difficulty is increased. If it is taking on average longer than ten minutes to find hashes and complete blocks then the difficulty is *decreased*.
Decreases don't happen a lot so far. But if a significant number of miners decide that it's not worth it -- that they're spending more on hardware and electricity than they are earning in bitcoin rewards -- and drop out, then the difficulty level will be decreased.
-
I think there are important figures beside security and popular trust that needs to be addressed with bitcoin. How stable is your power grid or more precisely your energy market? Personally, from what I see here as of now, I would tie bitcoin decisions to 2 things. One is gov't action like we saw in China but that might recover given that the currency is popular with people all over the world. Another is an energy crisis. Currently we aren't at one. In fact a few years back (2015) we were "drowning in oil". We were at one when we were fighting 2 senseless wars. What happens if that dries up? Could we move to sun, wind, and water like we've been doing? Yes. Would it be enough though? What if there was a ban (limited or full) on anything carbon? or radioactive? Could we support 7.5+ billion people running pumps and filters for water and heating as well as electrical lighting? What if the internet had limited use? These are questions I'd like to see considered since bitcoin relies on internet and computers. One thing is for sure. This totally explains why we didn't come up with this like today in the 90s or 2000s. Imagine running things on linear PSUs or incandescents. Also everything was much slower back then as well.
-
One thing is for sure. This totally explains why we didn't come up with this like today in the 90s or 2000s. Imagine running things on linear PSUs or incandescents. Also everything was much slower back then as well.
Nothing to do with computer speed. If computers were slower then the bitcoin network would automatically lower the hash difficulty level. Bitcoin would have worked fine with Apple ]['s, if the internet existed.
The big reason bitcoin could not happen until at least 1995 or 2000 (and git too) is that earlier hash functions such as MD4 (1990) and MD5 (1992) were too rubbish to be trusted to not ever produce collisions, and not be reversable.
Don't even talk about the hash functions we had in 1980...
-
Decreases don't happen a lot so far. But if a significant number of miners decide that it's not worth it -- that they're spending more on hardware and electricity than they are earning in bitcoin rewards -- and drop out, then the difficulty level will be decreased.
That also explains the "ratchet effect" with energy efficient altcoins. Where the ongoing cost to continue mining is low, there would be little reason for existing miners to drop offline. The ones who get screwed are the ones who invested in a mining setup too late, but they'll keep their miners running since they would at least want to cut their losses.
That said, I have experienced one of those energy efficient altcoins dropping in difficulty to something like 2/3 what it was just the day before. The culprit was that one of the big mining pools screwed up, effectively taking roughly 1/3 the miners offline.
-
Bitcoin is a form of cash.
If it is to, one day, take over the role currently occupied by cash
[snippity, snip, snip]
Of course some people only hold it for a day. Others stuff it under their mattress for years. But you can calculate the amount of things that are bought using cash in a day and the amount of cash that is in circulation, and it turns out that the the latter is about seven times bigger than the former.
The problem here is that you can't just talk about 'cash', but actually have to talk about money supply. Annnnd there's ya problem: because if we're to talk about money supply then we have to get into monetarist economics; and if economics is the "dismal science" then monetarist economics is the despondent sub-branch of the dismal science, as so much monetarist thinking was driven by doctrinaire politics and not by sound economic analysis and research. Thanks to that we don't really have the tools to do any useful analysis.
-
...
Given that there is a hard limit on the number of bitcoins that can ever be produced, the only way the total value of bitcoin can expand to accommodate growing usage is by the value of each bitcoin increasing.
...
Thanks for an interesting analysis, Bruce. But I think it is worth repeating that Bitcoin's current rise in valuation has nothing to do with the community planning responsibly ahead, to ensure that the total Bitcoin value in circulation matches the required transaction volume. What we see at the moment is pure speculation. The increase in Bitcoin usage is nowhere near the increase in its "value".
Actually, it seems that the Bitcoin infrastructure fundamentally stands in the way of wider usage. The number of transactions per second, and the cost per transaction, are simply ridiculous. With the massive computation effort and cost for validating new blockchain entries, and the slow speed of propagating updates to the blockchain, I understand that this is a fundamental limitation of the Bitcoin design. Future crypto-currencies may be able to do better -- by being less wasteful on computation power and electrical energy, and enabling faster and cheaper transactions. Improvement by several orders of magnitude is needed on all these fronts.
-
One thing is for sure. This totally explains why we didn't come up with this like today in the 90s or 2000s. Imagine running things on linear PSUs or incandescents. Also everything was much slower back then as well.
Nothing to do with computer speed. If computers were slower then the bitcoin network would automatically lower the hash difficulty level. Bitcoin would have worked fine with Apple ]['s, if the internet existed.
The big reason bitcoin could not happen until at least 1995 or 2000 (and git too) is that earlier hash functions such as MD4 (1990) and MD5 (1992) were too rubbish to be trusted to not ever produce collisions, and not be reversable.
Don't even talk about the hash functions we had in 1980...
Good to know. Unfortunately I'm not a software expert so I wouldn't know. I'm more into the hardware aspect. I do think that both energy and gov't crisis is a weak point of this form of currency. Just like people scoff at others for not even considering bitcoin I kinda roll my eyes when we go full in on bitcoin. Believe it or not paper and gold are more valuable than bitcoin in certain situations. Here are a few I know of personally. Hurricane Harvey (I'm in Houston, Texas), Hurricane Irma (family in Florida), and Hurricane Maria (most of my father's side was affected). This might have some use to gather prep supplies but afterwards..... well look at Puerto Rico. An extreme case yes but a valid one. Then there is the Phillipines with Typhoons (my mother's side) and the supposed "big one" for the West Coast. Those are sudden and you can't possibly prepare for those (an earthquake). These situations are where something physical like paper are king. Economic collaspe I wouldn't know. Depends on how the people have a take in that scenario? along with the other possibilities mentioned above. You could keep your wealth or lose what you put in. Gold is a safe bet in that situation but not for spending of course. I'm not gonna chuck around paper weights. The best overall for this time is diversifying your currency. Heck I still have Euros, Pounds, Franc, and Yen along with my US dollars, precious metals, and Bitcoin. As Dave mentioned, buy up and not sell when it goes low. But note that you have to use your brain. Sometimes logic doesn't pan out and a something gets oversold because "people like it". You get screwed out of potential earnings. But if Murphy comes along, boy will you be glad.
-
Dave's advice above to accumulate Bitcoin may pan out. But it is a pure speculation play at this point - you're picking red or black on a roulette wheel.
I was not speculating. The OP asked what lessons people have learned, that that is one lesson that has been learned.
Whether or not that lesson continues to hold true, and/or for how long, I don't know.
What I do know if that if you want to be into crypto, then you have two options:
1) Buy and hold for the long term.
or
2) Day trade the volatility
You can do both of course, and Option 1 can have several sub options:
a) Have a price at which you would cash out and take profits.
b) Sell out only when you need the money.
c) Buy into the crypto dream that is going to be the "new currency" and hold it forever to buy and sell stuff you need in your daily life.
-
Dave's advice above to accumulate Bitcoin may pan out. But it is a pure speculation play at this point - you're picking red or black on a roulette wheel.
I was not speculating.
I think he meant speculating as in financial gambling, not as in 'I wonder if...'.
-
... if you want to be into crypto, then you have two options:
1) Buy and hold for the long term.
or
2) Day trade the volatility
It seems that the significant transaction costs, and hard-to-predict delays in getting a transaction processed, make option (2) less attractive in the case of Bitcoin?
I am not sure whether these impediments on transactions are actually a good thing, because they serve as a "low pass filter" in a nervous market. On the other hand, a delay makes a feedback loop harder to stabilize -- which might apply also to the feedback loop of Bitcoin price vs. demand?
-
Trading bitcoin on an exchange won't necessarily (or tyoically) involve on-chain transactions, so transaction fees (bitcoin ones) don't factor there typically unti, you want to transfer coin in/out of your own bitcoin wallet. Of course the exhange will typically charge a margin on trades.
-
I have not read the whole thread, and my knowledge of Bitcoin is very limited. But one thing occured to me.
I see the following premises, please correct me if i am wrong:
- The amount of Bitcoins is limited
- The difficulty of mining is regularly increased
That means, at some point no new Bitcoins can be produced anymore I would assume.
- The actual mining is used to confirm, or rather enable, any transaction
So, what happens when the last Bitcoin has been mined? No mining means no transactions?
-
Transactions always incur costs, otherwise, no one will validate them.
It is the same as the commissions you currently pay to your bank.
-
When
shoeshine boys hairdressers electronics bloggers are offering you investment advice, it's usually time to run for the hills. Another sign is, that email spammers start pushing bitcoin schemes rather than penny stocks.
Yeah, yeah, I know. It's different this time.
-
Prof Steve Keens view on future economic crises and where BTC went wrong when designed.
He's leaving the stinking University environment and going crowdfunding!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5tLWGb4CY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5tLWGb4CY)
And should engineers take over the destructive damage done by economicans!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8InLpfrvAs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8InLpfrvAs)
M Hudson on why USA and the world is goooing dooown sloooowy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No6PUjGmMP4&t=59s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No6PUjGmMP4&t=59s)
-
If we present the value of the BC on a logarithmic scale, we are only one loop away from 100k
And some serious reports state it it might go that way.
-
- The actual mining is used to confirm, or rather enable, any transaction
So, what happens when the last Bitcoin has been mined? No mining means no transactions
Thats why there are fees, if if the miner can no longer be rewarded with coins for the blocks they mine, they still get paid in fees.
Probably your question comes from a misconception, minors are not "creating coins" they are "creating blocks on the chain which include the transactions people want to put on the chain", they get some coin as a reward for doing that (and as a way to actually create bitcoin while that is necessary).
https://news.bitcoin.com/what-happens-bitcoin-miners-all-coins-mined/
-
Probably your question comes from a misconception, minors are not "creating coins"
Sure hope so -- child labor is a disgrace!
;)
-
... if you want to be into crypto, then you have two options:
1) Buy and hold for the long term.
or
2) Day trade the volatility
It seems that the significant transaction costs, and hard-to-predict delays in getting a transaction processed, make option (2) less attractive in the case of Bitcoin?
No, it doesn't have to be.
Exchanges like Coinspot for example will trade instantly for you, but their fees are much higher.
You can also exploit arbitrage (the difference between prices on exchanges) and profit from buying on one exchange, transferring to another, and selling them instantly. This one does take time, but if the difference is big enough, it can be done. I've done it.
I am not sure whether these impediments on transactions are actually a good thing, because they serve as a "low pass filter" in a nervous market. On the other hand, a delay makes a feedback loop harder to stabilize -- which might apply also to the feedback loop of Bitcoin price vs. demand?
[/quote]
-
If we present the value of the BC on a logarithmic scale, we are only one loop away from 100k
And some serious reports state it it might go that way.
That is hard to say. Maybe the ability to trade in Bitcoin futures with the blessing of the FTC has a stabilising effect on the price since people also have something to gain if the price goes down.
-
I just want to point out that I'm not specifically talking about Bitcoin, I think a lot of that is speculation and hype simply because it's been in the media. At it's current price, I'm staying away from Bitcoin completely.
My focus is on the other (technically better) currencies, Eretheum being the major one.
-
One interesting thing about the Bitcoin phenomenon is how the bubble is developing based on enthusiasm by people who have no idea how it works, what it is about, what risks are or anything.
Other famous bubbles like real estate, tulips, gold and the like involved people who at least had some idea what they were buying. They may not have known a lot, but they knew what the product was, had some idea on why it was rare or in short supply, and some clue about the intrinsic value (if any) of the product.
This forum includes people more likely to understand Bitcoin and it's issues than most others, and clearly it is no hotbed of understanding. The people I find hyping Bitcoin on Facebook and other venues know exactly one thing - it has been going up, and they have been told it will keep doing so. They have to do "research" to even find out how to buy it. Have to do similar "research" to find how to sell it. This is the purest form of speculation I have ever seen.
-
If we present the value of the BC on a logarithmic scale, we are only one loop away from 100k
And some serious reports state it it might go that way.
But also, as Richard Feynman said (on a totally unrelated subject ;)):
"There's plenty of room at the bottom."
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/47/2/1960Bottom.pdf (http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/47/2/1960Bottom.pdf)
-
It's just a permissionless, censorship resistant payments layer for the internet, I mean, what could it really be worth?
-
It's just a permissionless, censorship resistant payments layer for the internet, I mean, what could it really be worth?
Are you mixing up the value of the transaction system vs. the value of the tokens it acts on?
Even if bitcoins and blockchains are a great idea, how would that justify the inflated value of a bitcoin?
-
"inflated"?
we shall see
-
"inflated"?
we shall see
Yes, we shall.
You are missing the main point of my prior post, however: The mixup between the value of the concept, and the value of the particular token or currency. Way back when, the concept of "money" or "cash" was a great idea -- so much more convenient than directly exchanging goods, having to find a trading partner who had just what you wanted, and wanted just what you had... Revolutionary!
But did the value of that general idea and concept define (or even affect) the exchange value of the first coins that were introduced? Of course not. So I think your argument regarding the value of Bitcoin as a concept does not have merit in the discussion of the value (inflated or not) of a Bitcoin as a currency.
-
anyone can create a Cryptocurrency, whether it has any long-term viability is a different story.
Similar to Linux distros.
Individual Linux distributions maybe. However the likes of Red Hat have been around for 20+ years and probably run on more systems outside of the desktop space than any other operating system.
Linux itself has been around for 25 years and is advancing rapidly each year. Hold the vast majority out side of the desktop sector. Practically runs the Internet. It's ancestry (Unix) dates back to the 60s and pre-dates Windows considerably.
Besides, distro's are just like pre-rolled packaged cigarettes, there are ways with will and energy to break free from distros all together and roll-your-own.
Personally I ran my own distro based on Linux From Scratch ( http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/) ) but while it is a great learning experience it becomes hard to maintain with regards to upgrades etc. So after about 5 years I moved to a more managed version called "Gentoo". I'm still there. Still running the same install I did some 10 years ago just routinely tweaked and upgraded.
-
So legit question to those here who have some cryptocurrency, when did you last spend some on (not blackmarket) goods/services, indeed if you havn't, would you even spend some on goods/services or is that something you would regard as "selling an appreciating investment" and you would rather pay with your normal currency.
Is it worth your average online retailer of goods / services going to much trouble to accept cryptos, which ones, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Etherium.
Obviously using a gateway like coinpayments.net, gourl.io, bitpay.com etc makes the development effort and acceptance costs pretty minimal, but there is a load of accounting consideration and business logic that goes along with it if you want to be legal and at least try and keep a correct tax position about it so it's not necessarily just a "flick the switch" endeavour.
-
Other famous bubbles like real estate, tulips, gold and the like involved people who at least had some idea what they were buying. They may not have known a lot, but they knew what the product was, had some idea on why it was rare or in short supply, and some clue about the intrinsic value (if any) of the product.
That might be true. Instead I think they had both a fear of missing out and an unrealistic belief that someone just like them, but richer, will buy when they wish to sell.
Totally agree. The difference I am pointing out is that in many other bubbles they had rational sounding arguments for why they were doing it. Most jumping on the Bitcoin wagon are pure plays on what you describe.
-
Being a naturally conservative person, especially when it comes to money, I've been very sceptical of Crypto in the past but have recently moved over to the "believers" and indeed the "investors" camp, now that I can see the potential it has (if implemented correctly).
I don't own any Bitcoin, but I have just started investing in others (mostly Ripple, Ethereum and Litecoin).
I'd love to hear from those who have had a more experience than I do with Crypto, what lessons have you learnt so far? I mean, we'd all love to go back and invest in some Bitcoin a few years back, but that ship has sailed.
You use bitcoins to mask yourself in order to avoid questions, and disguise your transactions, not as an investment/speculation tool, it's insane to invest in such a volatile thing!
-
Don’t miss out. Even Australian pole dancers are on-board. (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/11/21/risky-business-how-pole-dancing-instructor-found-success-bitcoin)
-
Don’t miss out. Even Australian pole dancers are on-board. (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/11/21/risky-business-how-pole-dancing-instructor-found-success-bitcoin)
Interesting because my friend who sold me her Bitcoin miner (because she graduated and no longer had a use for it) used to do pole dancing and "live streams" as a job in college! (No, I didn't see any of that. I didn't even know she did it until I was looking for a Bitcoin miner because my cousin wanted one.) What's unusual about her is that she is not an engineer or mathematician like most Bitcoiners - she was a medical student.
-
... my friend who sold me her Bitcoin miner (because she graduated and no longer had a use for it) ...
Because she had to pay for her electricity after moving out of the dorm? :P
-
Because she had to pay for her electricity after moving out of the dorm? :P
She was actually sharing a house with someone who turns the A/C way too low. The Bitcoin miner kept her room warm enough for her to "live stream" in the evening and get more Bitcoin doing that. I think that's a very smart move because medical school (well, any college level education in general) is expensive.
-
I'm not on-board with bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency. But not for the usual reasons.
I'd learned long ago that the existing national currency systems are entirely faith-based, the difference between specie-based currency vs fiat paper schemes, the long history of fiat currencies always eventually crashing to zero value, how the fractional reserve banking system is a wealth-theft scam run by the global elites, and so on. Basically we the people don't have anything that serves as a reliable, allodial (owned by holding it in your hand) store of wealth. Something that can't be taken away from you by the stroke of a government pen. (Which includes by inflation, that results from excessive creation of fiat currency, and is a deliberate, calculated form of asset theft from the people.)
Also the data tracking measures being built into the existing financial structure, the anti-cash push, and so on, pose a severe threat to individual privacy and freedom. Elimination of which is the deliberate underlying intent of the anti-cash push by many governments world wide.
Gold and silver can be used to convert fiat currency to a value store that can be kept and hidden long term, but they are still subject to a rigged-market price suppression scheme, in which large amounts of paper 'gold certificates' can be created out of nothing and dumped on the bullion markets to knock the spot price down as required by the banks. (Which is what happens all the time.)
Theoretically, cryptocurrency could solve many of the problems inherent in government-mandated fiat currencies. The intrinsic ceiling on the total number of bitcoins gives the currency some of the benefits of a true gold-backed paper currency (ie physical gold can't be created out of nothing in vast amounts, thus smashed in hyper-inflating worthlessness deliberately or otherwise.)
Cryptocurrency strengthens privacy and freedom, by allowing hidden yet reliable stores of value, and anonymous transactions.
In general I think cryptocurrency is a great idea. Not sure about the specific implementation though. The complexity and reliance on fragile computing/data stores is a definite handicap. Another severe problem is that virtually all existing computing platforms are riddled with back door access means installed by intelligence agencies in cooperation with the manufacturers, not to mention unintentional security holes.
In the early days of bitcoin I paid it some attention, considering whether to jump into it.
I decided not to, because:
* There were continual instances of large scale theft, scams and failures, demonstrating that it wasn't as 'secure' as claimed.
* I knew it could take off, and rise greatly in value. But also knew I'd never be able to predict the cycles, and so 'buy low sell high' isn't as easy as it sounds. (I already proved to myself I couldn't predict such things with gold and silver.)
* Cryptocurrency will definitely be fought against tooth and nail by governments. It is a direct threat to their power base, and to the Elites that operate governments as a control facade. There's no predicting how extreme official suppression measures may become. And I don't want to find myself a target of such measures.
* Most important reason: I already have a primary project, that deserves all my attention. I already don't have enough time and energy to give that. So I at least try to minimize side track projects. Bitcoin would easily consume a lot of time. Not just setting up a miner, but following the technical and political developments - several hours a day to stay in touch.
So I dropped my interest in it. Now rarely pay any attention. Take the current price spike with a shrug, much the same as with my mistake in not buying an Apple I board when they came out (currently would be worth about a million bucks.)
So today I will be working on building a side awning on a workshop, to get some large stuff out of a space that I need free, to set up a big old lathe I recently bought, to make some components for a vacuum system, that is part of 'that project'.
The recent bitcoin developments are interesting. But they are just one of dozens of fascinating and significant ongoing world developments, virtually none of which get any mention here in eevblog.
Edit:
Oh, ha ha, I popped into this thread to post this link, then forgot:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-03/three-economic-eras-bitcoin (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-03/three-economic-eras-bitcoin)
The Three Economic Eras Of Bitcoin
-
As you state Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency) can have a number of advantages over paper based fiat currencies. The problem with it is getting people to use cryptocurrencies as a normal currency. To buy their daily bread, so to speak.
This is impossible with Bitcoin as the maximum number of transactions will never be high enough to become a widespread currency. IMO that means that Bitcoin will never be more than a 21st century version of the tulip bulb. A vehicle for speculation. Come to think of it, buying into tulips made more sense, as when they lose their value they still make beautiful flowers.
The one thing that kept me from using Bitcoin is the fact that something, somewhere, sits on at least a million Bitcoins; the first ones mined by the entity that invented them. Given the fact that there are only going to be 21.7 million BTC in total that means that if we would overcome the transaction problem and we all started to pay our way using Bitcoin that entity would own 5% of all wealth in this world. That would get us right back to square one, at the mercy of very few, unknown people. It comes down to a choice between the devil you know and the saint you don't.
-
I just did read that US official show green for bitcoin derived investment object. I get goosebumbs, glitnir anyone?
-
Quite what is "US official show green" meant to mean?
-
Quite what is "US official show green" meant to mean?
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7654-17#PrRoWMBL (http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7654-17#PrRoWMBL)
-
If you do buy... keep your BTC safe... http://www.wired.co.uk/article/bitcoin-lost-newport-landfill (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/bitcoin-lost-newport-landfill)
-
Quite what is "US official show green" meant to mean?
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7654-17#PrRoWMBL (http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7654-17#PrRoWMBL)
So you meant that US officials had given 'something' a 'green light'? Well they haven't. From where you pointed that URL:
Today, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) and the CBOE Futures Exchange (CFE) self-certified [My emphasis] new contracts for bitcoin futures products, and the Cantor Exchange (Cantor) self-certified a new contract for bitcoin binary options.
As with all contracts offered through Commission-regulated exchanges and cleared through Commission-regulated clearinghouses, the completion of the processes described above is not a Commission approval [My emphasis]. It does not constitute a Commission endorsement of the use or value of virtual currency products or derivatives.
Three vendors of cryptocurrency derivatives self-certifying their products is not an official seal of approval. It's of no more worth than Mr. C.M.O.T. Dibbler self-certifying that his sausages-in-a-bun are the best sausages on open air sale in the town square today.
-
Quite what is "US official show green" meant to mean?
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7654-17#PrRoWMBL (http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7654-17#PrRoWMBL)
So you meant that US officials had given 'something' a 'green light'? Well they haven't. From where you pointed that URL:
Today, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) and the CBOE Futures Exchange (CFE) self-certified [My emphasis] new contracts for bitcoin futures products, and the Cantor Exchange (Cantor) self-certified a new contract for bitcoin binary options.
As with all contracts offered through Commission-regulated exchanges and cleared through Commission-regulated clearinghouses, the completion of the processes described above is not a Commission approval [My emphasis]. It does not constitute a Commission endorsement of the use or value of virtual currency products or derivatives.
Three vendors of cryptocurrency derivatives self-certifying their products is not an official seal of approval. It's of no more worth than Mr. C.M.O.T. Dibbler self-certifying that his sausages-in-a-bun are the best sausages on open air sale in the town square today.
It seems so, my first source where I did see the news were referring that source (which I did quickly searched) wrongly. Let see what happens, but at least they aren't prohibiting these futures etc. for now. I'll assume these will be highly lucrative, but shady business for a short time. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
-
[It seems so, my first source where I did see the news were referring that source (which I did quickly searched) wrongly. Let see what happens, but at least they aren't prohibiting these futures etc. for now. I'll assume these will be highly lucrative, but shady business for a short time. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Financial derivatives are tricky things; some can stabilize markets, some can destabilize markets. Which they do largely depends on whether the buyers of those derivatives are speculating or are hedging against future price changes because they need actual protection against those price changes.
-
Financial derivatives are tricky things; some can stabilize markets, some can destabilize markets. Which they do largely depends on whether the buyers of those derivatives are speculating or are hedging against future price changes because they need actual protection against those price changes.
Agree. But it seems to me that there will be one qualitatively new possibility now, due to futures contracts: You can now bet on a falling Bitcoin. Up to now, one could only buy Bitcoin and speculate that it would rise, right? I wonder what that change will do to the Bitcoin price and its volatility...
As a side note, does anyone know whether those futures contracts will specify "physical delivery" or "cash settlement"? I.e., if I sign a "put" contract to sell you Bitcoins for a certain price two months from now -- do I actually have to sell you the Bitcoins then, or do we just settle the price difference in USD or some other currency?
With the latter type of contract (which is the more common type, I understand), one can finally speculate in Bitcoin without ever moving a Bitcoin! Given the fact that 99% of Bitcoin transactions are probably speculative today, that will make Bitcoin a truly "virtual" currency... Heck, we might even shut down the whole blockchain and mining infrastructure, and just have people take bets on a virtual something called Bitcoin! :P
-
With the excess money you have, you can choose to speculate, to save defensively, (or combinate both)
Cryptocurrencies are a bad way for defensively saving, because after a (serious) stock/govt crash, electricity/networks could fall down, or could be put down/limited.
When the value of money goes down in a hyperinflation, BTC goes relatively up, but you can't access/use it, whitch will make it crash too.
-
FWIW, Bitcoin just hit $15,000. Those 5,000 bitcoin pizzas made somebody very rich!
edit: Opps - false alarm. It's only $13,801
-
FWIW, Bitcoin just hit $15,000. Those 5,000 bitcoin pizzas made somebody very rich!
edit: Opps - false alarm. It's only $13,801
My post was a bit early... it's broken $16,600 today.
Hummm... +14% in a day. How long until somebody blinks, and $262,000,000,000 (a little bit bigger than the GDP of Finland, Chile or Pakistan) becomes nothing.
-
Bitcoin transaction fees are a bit of a fun killer as I have just discovered.
I have been saving $20/week for the last couple of months in bitcoin just for interest sake. Now I have 9 small bitcoin amounts in my wallet and it's worth more than double what I have put in. So I decided to sell it.
However, dun dun, dunnn:- to convert it back into cash right now would cost me $100 in fees to get $200 in cash back!
This is partly because the transaction fees are quite high at the moment because there is a backlog. However even if they were normal I would be paying 10% or more in fees.
What I believe I needed to do is 'prep' for selling these by offering a small fee to combine the small transactions into one at a time when there is no backlog. To get it done cheaply, that transaction would take an long time to go through and therefore my ability to sell is out of my control.
Logically this makes a savings plan in bitcoin a bad idea if you are investing regular small amounts. It's a pretty big downside.
-
Bitcoin transaction fees/limits will also interesting in case of an/the upcoming crash.
What happens if everyone wants to sell, but can't due to limited transactions/time? Guess the fees go up and the biggest players sell relatively cheap (in % of their bitcoin assets), while the ones who got fooled into the bitcoin craze will have to pay more fees than what their bitcoins are worth.
Apart from that, any guesses/estimates on when it will crash? I say it will have crashed by Christmas ;D. Will be funny, since those 160-250*10^9 USD worth of Bitcoin is about 50-100USD for like every person that has internet on this world. Since not everyone owns bitcoins and some are certainly in dept due to creed of owning more bitcoins/money, some creedy persons certainly will fall hard ;D
-
Comparing it to investing in shares it looks like a 0.2 trillion dollar company with a horrific 5-10% buy/sell spread and up to an hour to confirm a deal??? Really? Let’s see what happens when panic selling sets in and the trades start taking hours to be confirmed.
-
Bitcoin transaction fees are a bit of a fun killer as I have just discovered.
I have been saving $20/week for the last couple of months in bitcoin just for interest sake. Now I have 9 small bitcoin amounts in my wallet and it's worth more than double what I have put in. So I decided to sell it.
However, dun dun, dunnn:- to convert it back into cash right now would cost me $100 in fees to get $200 in cash back!
This is partly because the transaction fees are quite high at the moment because there is a backlog. However even if they were normal I would be paying 10% or more in fees.
What I believe I needed to do is 'prep' for selling these by offering a small fee to combine the small transactions into one at a time when there is no backlog. To get it done cheaply, that transaction would take an long time to go through and therefore my ability to sell is out of my control.
Logically this makes a savings plan in bitcoin a bad idea if you are investing regular small amounts. It's a pretty big downside.
That doesn't sound quite right. Are you saying, you have 9 different addresses? If you have all the money in one address, then only need to pay the fee once ($15 right now) plus a currency conversion fee.
It looks like these guys are offering ~2.7% fees: https://localbitcoins.com/ad/571105/cash-out-your-bitcoins-bank-all-banks (but I think min is $300).
-
Bitcoin transaction fees are a bit of a fun killer as I have just discovered.
I have been saving $20/week for the last couple of months in bitcoin just for interest sake. Now I have 9 small bitcoin amounts in my wallet and it's worth more than double what I have put in. So I decided to sell it.
However, dun dun, dunnn:- to convert it back into cash right now would cost me $100 in fees to get $200 in cash back!
This is partly because the transaction fees are quite high at the moment because there is a backlog. However even if they were normal I would be paying 10% or more in fees.
What I believe I needed to do is 'prep' for selling these by offering a small fee to combine the small transactions into one at a time when there is no backlog. To get it done cheaply, that transaction would take an long time to go through and therefore my ability to sell is out of my control.
Logically this makes a savings plan in bitcoin a bad idea if you are investing regular small amounts. It's a pretty big downside.
That doesn't sound quite right. Are you saying, you have 9 different addresses? If you have all the money in one address, then only need to pay the fee once ($15 right now) plus a currency conversion fee.
It looks like these guys are offering ~2.7% fees: https://localbitcoins.com/ad/571105/cash-out-your-bitcoins-bank-all-banks (but I think min is $300).
I'd be really happy if it wasn't right :)
All of the bitcoin is in one wallet, and I think one address - at least they all came from the same institution to the same wallet so I think that is the case.
I initially tried to send close to the full amount in the wallet and then kept reducing it after getting 'Insufficient funds to pay fee' type messages. The wallet is Copay and it has a 'Send Max Amount' function, so I tried that. It tells me that the fee is $100 NZD which is 30% of the sending amount. Reducing to 'super economy' drops it to about $90 NZD. Obviously the lower I go the longer it will take to happen.
On the faq they mention this:
Copay requires high fees for low amounts transactions?
The parameter used for the fee calculation is the TX size, not the output amount. So, this could happen when you have many small inputs in your wallet, so you need to use all (or most) of them to build the transaction and your fee will be increase significantly. For a more detailed explanation check this contributor comment: https://github.com/bitpay/copay/issues/5164#issuecomment-265569494. This could be useful too: https://github.com/bitpay/copay/issues/4803#issuecomment-254496226.
I think this is part of how Bitcoin works, and probably not a well understood part.
-
I'd learned long ago that the existing national currency systems are entirely faith-based
Only in failed states, in functioning states they are partly force based. You generally have to pay taxes for instance to preserve your ownership of real estate. Those taxes have to be paid in national currency, hence to a certain extent force backs the value. In fact legal tender laws can make other means of exchange illegal for normal commerce as well, through more force.
-
Come to think of it, buying into tulips made more sense, as when they lose their value they still make beautiful flowers.
You can also eat them, the bulbs that is.
-
I'd learned long ago that the existing national currency systems are entirely faith-based
Only in failed states, ...
The level of function of the state doesn't have any effect on whether the currency is faith-based or not, it merely affects the amount of faith that people will have in that currency. Fiat currencies only ever have the value that people place in them, pretty much by definition. If the state dictates that, for its purposes, a currency has value and coerces behaviour to enforce that, it doesn't alter the quintessential nature of a fiat currency.
-
In a functioning state, if everyone loses faith in fiat currency does it lose all its value? It does not, people will want it to relinquish their debts to government (or simply to facilitate trade with restrictive legal tender laws). There is demand, thus it will have value. Your lack of faith can not remove that utility, thus it can not be the full basis of its value.
Force is a more fundamental basis for the value of fiat currencies than faith.
-
Marco, you're neglecting to factor in cases where the State decides, for whatever reason, to de-monetize the existing fiat currency.
This happens often, historically speaking. For instance recently in India. Also Nth Korea a few years ago. You can go to any coin collectors store, and cheaply buy a bundle of assorted de-monetized paper currencies from around the world. It's an educational experience.
'Fiat' means 'by command'. If you are holding currency (either physical cash or numbers in bank accounts), your store of value retains its value entirely at the discretion of the government. Hence the 'faith' involved isn't just on the part of the People. It also depends on good faith from the powers that be.
Whereas holding a currency that is literally in the form of physical gold and silver, isn't faith based. Doesn't matter what anyone (the people, the government, or you) believes. You still hold something of material value. There might be some argument over the exact value (eg loaves of bread per ounce of gold), but this actually remains remarkably stable over history. In Roman times you could buy a fine set of clothes for about an ounce of gold. Today, you can get a fine set of clothes for about an ounce. The dollar value of gold is more an indicator of the value (or lack of it) of the dollar, not of gold.
I'm waiting to see if the mathematical uniqueness and non-reproducibility of bitcoin and other crypto currencies will serve to give cryptocurrencies the permanency and allodial attributes of precious metals. I suspect not. But only time will tell.
It's very relevant that the number of different cryptocurrencies seems to be exploding. There's obviously no limit on the number of algorithms possible, which puts us right back into infinite printing press territory.
-
In a functioning state, if everyone loses faith in fiat currency does it lose all its value? It does not, people will want it to relinquish their debts to government (or simply to facilitate trade with restrictive legal tender laws). There is demand, thus it will have value. Your lack of faith can not remove that utility, thus it can not be the full basis of its value.
Force is a more fundamental basis for the value of fiat currencies than faith.
You argument only works where there is coercion. If there is free choice (say the black market, or a foreign market) then faith in a currency is all that matters.
One can get most results with enough coercion; if I put a gun to your head I could make you recant your position, but fortunately I'm more inclined to use rhetoric and logic.
The problem is that people are so inured to fiat currencies that many fail to see them for what they are and continue to believe that they have some intrinsic value. So much so that purely financial crises can bring the world to its knees despite the fact that the resources, workers, factories, demand and all the other elements of the economy continue to exist just as they did before said crises. That could not happen in a barter economy or one where money only had real intrinsic worth, except for some real physical disaster.
No one is arguing that fiat currencies have no utility, just no intrinsic value and what value they have is based on a collective belief in their value. Even the most debased fiat currency has utility, even if only as a source of combustible heating material, on a nail in the lavatory or as a collectable keepsake of the foolishness of governments - the Zimbabwean Dollar comes to mind.
-
Bitcoin transaction fees are a bit of a fun killer as I have just discovered.
I have been saving $20/week for the last couple of months in bitcoin just for interest sake. Now I have 9 small bitcoin amounts in my wallet and it's worth more than double what I have put in. So I decided to sell it.
However, dun dun, dunnn:- to convert it back into cash right now would cost me $100 in fees to get $200 in cash back!
This is partly because the transaction fees are quite high at the moment because there is a backlog. However even if they were normal I would be paying 10% or more in fees.
What I believe I needed to do is 'prep' for selling these by offering a small fee to combine the small transactions into one at a time when there is no backlog. To get it done cheaply, that transaction would take an long time to go through and therefore my ability to sell is out of my control.
Logically this makes a savings plan in bitcoin a bad idea if you are investing regular small amounts. It's a pretty big downside.
To quote Adam Chalmers? (@adam_chal)
Bitcoin was supposed to demonstrate the power of a true free market. Instead it's full of scams, rent-seekers, theft, useless for real purchases and accelerates climate change. Mission accomplished,[/]
-
but this actually remains remarkably stable over history. In Roman times you could buy a fine set of clothes for about an ounce of gold
But why?
In practical terms, gold generally speaking, isn't astoundingly useful in an large scale, even less so in modern life than in antiquity, it's not really that rare really is it. There's piles of gold to satisfy demand, I don't think any industry (semiconductors for example) has trouble buying gold if they need to buy some.
I think gold, and silver, and diamonds etc are valuable mainly because they are desirable things to have, and that's purely because people, for no good reason have decided they are desirable things to have.
Diamonds are an even bigger case in point, gem diamonds have essential zero practical use in any sort of scale that matters, and yet they are assigned by the people such fantastic monetary equivalence that they are used, much the same as bitcoin in fact, for exchanging value when you don't want to exchange money (ie, blackmarket). Industrial diamonds, the ones we actually use, have all the practical applications, but none of the value. Neither gem diamonds nor industrial ones are rare, hell we can manufacture them.
All it takes is for the people to decide that gold, silver, diamonds really are not "all that" and whoosh, there goes the market, there would be piles of supply to satisfy the actual users of them in practical applications for a long time.
Bitcoin isn't really that much different, in fact the parallels with diamonds especially are really close if you think about it - an artificially constrained supply of a not-rare thing, where the valuable type has little practical purpose (ie, bitcoin) and is valuable because people say it's valuable, and the non-valuable type has lots of practical purpose (eg various altcoins due to low fees/bigger blocks/segwit etc...) and probably should be more valuable because it's more useful but isn't more valuable because the people say it's not valuable.
People are strange.
-
Bitcoin transaction fees are a bit of a fun killer as I have just discovered.
I have been saving $20/week for the last couple of months in bitcoin just for interest sake. Now I have 9 small bitcoin amounts in my wallet and it's worth more than double what I have put in. So I decided to sell it.
However, dun dun, dunnn:- to convert it back into cash right now would cost me $100 in fees to get $200 in cash back!
This is partly because the transaction fees are quite high at the moment because there is a backlog. However even if they were normal I would be paying 10% or more in fees.
What I believe I needed to do is 'prep' for selling these by offering a small fee to combine the small transactions into one at a time when there is no backlog. To get it done cheaply, that transaction would take an long time to go through and therefore my ability to sell is out of my control.
Logically this makes a savings plan in bitcoin a bad idea if you are investing regular small amounts. It's a pretty big downside.
To quote Adam Chalmers? (@adam_chal)
Bitcoin was supposed to demonstrate the power of a true free market. Instead it's full of scams, rent-seekers, theft, useless for real purchases and accelerates climate change. Mission accomplished,[/]
Well scams etc are hardly new, so no surprises there. The price volatility is pretty normal, plenty of other examples of that.
The transaction problems are a major issue with Bitcoin obviously but probably could be fixed by a better implementation.
However, I agree, I think the power usage on its own makes the concept non-sustainable long term. Trading electricity for x coins just isn't a good idea these days.
-
There exist cryptocurrencies that are energy efficient, including some that I mine. The main problem seems to be the "ratchet effect" since there's basically no reason for miners to stop.
-
There exist cryptocurrencies that are energy efficient, including some that I mine. The main problem seems to be the "ratchet effect" since there's basically no reason for miners to stop.
Thats interesting, will look that up. I think the energy usage and the potential for quantum computing to make the entire thing obsolete overnight are the two big threats.
-
Once cryptos move from a "proof of work" system to a "proof of stake" model, mining will becoming irrelevant. Already it's quite inefficient after you factor in the cost of equipment and electricity.
-
but this actually remains remarkably stable over history. In Roman times you could buy a fine set of clothes for about an ounce of gold
But why?
In practical terms, gold generally speaking, isn't astoundingly useful in an large scale, even less so in modern life than in antiquity, it's not really that rare really is it. There's piles of gold to satisfy demand, I don't think any industry (semiconductors for example) has trouble buying gold if they need to buy some.
I think gold, and silver, and diamonds etc are valuable mainly because they are desirable things to have, and that's purely because people, for no good reason have decided they are desirable things to have.
You're missing out one crucial characteristic of gold, the thing that makes it stand out. It is incorruptible.
OK, with relatively modern chemistry (relative to humanities relationship with gold) you can change gold, but natural processes don't. You can acquire a mass of grain, you can build a palace, but if you leave then for 50 years they will have decayed but gold will have not. That is both a practical and 'magical' quality. Combine that appeal with limited availability and instant recognisability in both natural and coin form and you can see why gold stands out in history.
-
Also there is another thing to worry about beside bitcoin itself. Lets assume it fails. How many of you are in the video card business? Also how many of you are gamers? It'll be interesting times. Be aware of Nasdaq.
-
I'd be really happy if it wasn't right :)
All of the bitcoin is in one wallet, and I think one address - at least they all came from the same institution to the same wallet so I think that is the case.
I initially tried to send close to the full amount in the wallet and then kept reducing it after getting 'Insufficient funds to pay fee' type messages. The wallet is Copay and it has a 'Send Max Amount' function, so I tried that. It tells me that the fee is $100 NZD which is 30% of the sending amount. Reducing to 'super economy' drops it to about $90 NZD. Obviously the lower I go the longer it will take to happen.
On the faq they mention this:
I think this is part of how Bitcoin works, and probably not a well understood part.
That sounds like you have multiple addresses, copay might be hiding that from you to make things "simpler". $90/15 would be 6 different addresses.
Some wallets will create a new address every time you choose to "add funds".
See if you can find a list in there, the address is 26 to 35 characters long (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address).
Of course for a useful crypto-currency, having 6 addresses would not be a major inconvenience and fees would be pennies or a few dollars at most.
-
Yep, im in it.
Already more than doubled my money, but i only put in a small amount and am wishing i had put in a little more.
hehe, in the same boat as everyone else.
Personally, i recommend withdrawing your initial investment once the gain is like 3-5x.
That way you can never actually lose out. ever.
-
I'd be really happy if it wasn't right :)
All of the bitcoin is in one wallet, and I think one address - at least they all came from the same institution to the same wallet so I think that is the case.
I initially tried to send close to the full amount in the wallet and then kept reducing it after getting 'Insufficient funds to pay fee' type messages. The wallet is Copay and it has a 'Send Max Amount' function, so I tried that. It tells me that the fee is $100 NZD which is 30% of the sending amount. Reducing to 'super economy' drops it to about $90 NZD. Obviously the lower I go the longer it will take to happen.
On the faq they mention this:
I think this is part of how Bitcoin works, and probably not a well understood part.
That sounds like you have multiple addresses, copay might be hiding that from you to make things "simpler". $90/15 would be 6 different addresses.
Some wallets will create a new address every time you choose to "add funds".
See if you can find a list in there, the address is 26 to 35 characters long (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address).
Of course for a useful crypto-currency, having 6 addresses would not be a major inconvenience and fees would be pennies or a few dollars at most.
Yes you may well be right, they do say something to that effect in the FAQ for 'privacy' reasons. I haven't yet been able to confirm/deny that this is what has happened though, will dig deeper when I get a chance.
Seems a tad obsessive, but that is the nature of the beast at the moment. When the inevitable bitcoin crash comes hopefully something better will rise from the ashes. It is clearly not a currency, it is more like a virtual commodity as it is not practical to trade with.
-
Personally, i recommend withdrawing your initial investment once the gain is like 3-5x.
That way you can never actually lose out. ever.
Yes, I'm sure you are right there.
I have seen the same advice with respect to gambling casinos.
|O
-
You're missing out one crucial characteristic of gold, the thing that makes it stand out. It is incorruptible.
OK, with relatively modern chemistry (relative to humanities relationship with gold) you can change gold, but natural processes don't. You can acquire a mass of grain, you can build a palace, but if you leave then for 50 years they will have decayed but gold will have not. That is both a practical and 'magical' quality.
Gold is like the saying about water molecules - take any given glass of water and it contains thousands of molecules that one passed though Albert Einstein.
The gold you buy likely contains a small percentage that once hung around the neck of a Pharaoh in ancient Egpyt.
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-05/crypto-cornucopia-part-1-bitcoin-trust-machine (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-05/crypto-cornucopia-part-1-bitcoin-trust-machine)
Part 1 "Bitcoin Is A Trust Machine" here.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-06/crypto-cornucopia-part-2-system-garbage-how-do-we-fix-it (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-06/crypto-cornucopia-part-2-system-garbage-how-do-we-fix-it)
Part 2 "This System Is Garbage, How Do We Fix It?" here.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-08/crypto-cornucopia-part-3-system-no-justice-no-order-no-rules-no-predictability (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-08/crypto-cornucopia-part-3-system-no-justice-no-order-no-rules-no-predictability)
Crypto-Cornucopia Part 3 - "A System With No Justice, No Order, No Rules, & No Predictability"
-
You can go to any coin collectors store, and cheaply buy a bundle of assorted de-monetized paper currencies from around the world. It's an educational experience.
But not all of those where deemed worthless by the governments. Take for example the changeover to the Euro in Europe. In that case we got new money in exchange for the old money.
-
But not all of those where deemed worthless by the governments. Take for example the changeover to the Euro in Europe. In that case we got new money in exchange for the old money.
Certainly. However this doesn't counter the point that governments can demonetize fiat currency, and often do.
Heh. The Bitcoin kerfuffle also has excellent comedy potential. For instance:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-08/bulgaria-government-shocked-discover-it-owns-3-billion-bitcoin (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-08/bulgaria-government-shocked-discover-it-owns-3-billion-bitcoin)
Bulgaria Government Shocked To Discover It Owns $3 Billion In Bitcoin
Edit to add: Next up, Bulgarian government shocked to discover it has 'misplaced' $3 Billion in bitcoin.
-
Haven't read disscusion so far, but one thing probably that was't mention was this;
Bitcoin is not a Bubble it is a REVOLUTION !!!
emphasis, solely mine.
Dont expect a fair evaluation from those that their very jobs (and very good paying jobs) are at stake.
-
You're missing out one crucial characteristic of gold, the thing that makes it stand out. It is incorruptible.
OK, with relatively modern chemistry (relative to humanities relationship with gold) you can change gold, but natural processes don't. You can acquire a mass of grain, you can build a palace, but if you leave then for 50 years they will have decayed but gold will have not. That is both a practical and 'magical' quality.
Gold is like the saying about water molecules - take any given glass of water and it contains thousands of molecules that one passed though Albert Einstein.
The gold you buy likely contains a small percentage that once hung around the neck of a Pharaoh in ancient Egpyt.
Actually it's not. Gold is not like water, it does not circulate in nature.
-
Actually it's not. Gold is not like water, it does not circulate in nature.
Heh. Don't be so sure.
http://www.pmav.org.au/stories-a-reports/triangle-gold (http://www.pmav.org.au/stories-a-reports/triangle-gold)
-
This is excellent deep dive into the crypto ecosystem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=Ja9D0kpksxw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=Ja9D0kpksxw)
-
I just did read a new term for cryptos ... kryptonite currencies. Bigger fools game and that the energy production need to double if the popularity of the cryptos continues as now. :-DD
I'll stay in traditional investments.
-
I followed stories surrounding computer security for a couple of years off twitter for my own amusement, and I have zero faith in computer security and privacy. Somehow, crypto currency doesn't seem appealing to me. Admittely, I don't really understand its appeal so I don't have much to say in that regard.
I swear I've heard some time ago, that with this one OS, at login, pressing the "back" key five times would bypass the login because of bad code implementation or who-knows-what. And in the bushes, lurks the NSA et al, collecting your politician's freaking DNA, finger prints and whatnot.
I truly fear that the future will be a combination of a police state similar of today (imo dubbed "surveillance state" by those that feel more comfortable with using that label as opposed to 'police state') and most things monitored and backdoored.
-
I truly fear that the future will be a combination of a police state similar of today (imo dubbed "surveillance state" by those that feel more comfortable with using that label as opposed to 'police state') and most things monitored and backdoored.
Yep, and if you actively take steps to avoid being monitored, then the government will come after you ( "hmm, why don't you let us monitor you? what are you hiding?" )
There is a hilarious feature in web browsers where you can tell the website to "not track you" :-DD Here is how the website interprets this: "hmm why doesn't he want to be tracked?" "let's put him into a priority list of clients to be definitely tracked".
-
There is a hilarious feature in web browsers where you can tell the website to "not track you" :-DD Here is how the website interprets this: "hmm why doesn't he want to be tracked?" "let's put him into a priority list of clients to be definitely tracked".
DNT is stupid yes. However it's more a "please don't track me" request followed by the response of "err, we're doing it anyway so shut up". There is no point in it existing.
-
You're missing out one crucial characteristic of gold, the thing that makes it stand out. It is incorruptible.
But the whole reason that the world moved away from using gold or any other currency of intrinsic value is because:
* They can be faked. Fake gold coins where a real issue back in their day.
* They are easily stolen.
* In a lot of cases they are hard to store and hard to move/carry/ship
* they are very difficult to trade with if as the denominations are awkward to work with. If your loaf of bread is not worth a whole gold coin what do you do? Buy 500 loafs and let the 499 rot?
I suppose you could start scrapping off slithers and using jewellers scales to weigh out the 100mg of gold needed to buy your lunch, but if the person behind you in the queue sneezes while you are doing that, lunch could cost you twice as much.
A quick watch of "Requiem of the American Dream" is good craic.
-
* They are easily stolen.
This goes all the more for Bitcoin. Stealing them is easier than stealing gold. You don't have to physically move heavy stuff from vaults into dump trucks but a simple hack performed from your lazy chair does the trick. You can't spend the stolen coins easily as the address to which they were sent is public, but laundering schemes take care of that.
-
You're missing out one crucial characteristic of gold, the thing that makes it stand out. It is incorruptible.
But the whole reason that the world moved away from using gold or any other currency of intrinsic value is because:
* They can be faked. Fake gold coins where a real issue back in their day.
* They are easily stolen.
* In a lot of cases they are hard to store and hard to move/carry/ship
* they are very difficult to trade with if as the denominations are awkward to work with. If your loaf of bread is not worth a whole gold coin what do you do? Buy 500 loafs and let the 499 rot?
I suppose you could start scrapping off slithers and using jewellers scales to weigh out the 100mg of gold needed to buy your lunch, but if the person behind you in the queue sneezes while you are doing that, lunch could cost you twice as much.
A quick watch of "Requiem of the American Dream" is good craic.
You're missing the entire basic point here and some context.
The context above was about why gold has always been the "gold standard" in human society over the ages - you see, so notable that it has become part of the language.
The basic point is about fiat currencies versus currencies with some substantive backing of intrinsic value. There is a world of difference between using physical gold coins versus using a nominal currency that is backed by a gold standard, or any other basis of intrinsic worth, as opposed to a fiat currency. Nobody is suggesting that precious objects of intrinsic worth are a practical day-to-day medium of exchange, some are suggesting that the traditional backing of currencies by said precious objects might still be a good idea.
I don't know where you get the idea that gold is any more easily stolen than paper money (slightly harder if anything after a few thousand grams) or even cryptocurrencies - $60 million of cryptocurrency went walkies from one exchange only the other day, at least if that was gold it would have weighed 1.5 tonnes - which would have been a bit hard to get down a wire.
-
I think the crypto currencies have no reference (i.e. gold) to peg the token's value.
It's like our multimeters having no reference standard for the "volt", the number could be anything.
1971 President Nixon decoupled the US dollar from gold, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock) it became a free-floating fiat currency.
But the history- it was tied to gold at the beginning and the $US has total trust world-wide, has allowed the $US to thrive.
Crypto currencies don't have this, their value is an arbitrary number. Nothing to ground it to physical reality.
Trust is not there yet, given the security flaws (https://bitcoin.org/en/alerts).
-
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/940075967023800322/pu/vid/1280x720/JEw5P06WbKT3Gq3M.mp4
-
I think it is time to share my encounter with cryptocurrency.
About 4 years ago the Bitcoin went up to an (for that time) insane value. That inspired me to try and mine some cryptocurrency on my own so I bought a videocard with a decent GPU (Radeon HD7850) and setup an old PC with Linux. I choose to mine Litecoins because these didn't need a whole lot of hardware to mine amount which didn't had a whole lot of zeroes between the dot and the number. I did some initial testing and found it interesting that an Intel I750 was about 30 times slower (30k iterations/s) than the videocard (150k iterations/s). CUDA has some pretty impressive processing power...
However from reviews on internet the videocard I bought should be able to do over 400k iterations/s. The mining software tried to maximize performance by keeping the GPU at it's maximum temperature. So lower performance meant inadequate cooling. Therefore I mounted a much bigger fan and ducting onto the videocard. This got the performance up to 320k iterations/s. It is rather odd that appearantly the standard cooling solution on the videocard could not support the maximum performance at all.
I also found that the mining software was oscillating between various iteration speeds and concluded the control loop the mining software uses wasn't working right. I downloaded the sources for the mining software and installed the required CUDA development tools. I recall compiling the mining software was pretty painless. Unfortunately there was no quick fix to get the mining software work better.
By that time I also lost interest in the Litecoin because pooled mining worked slow. I wanted to mine my own coins. I ended up choosing Infinitecoins. Because that was relatively new cryptocoin back then mining went quick in blocks of 128000 at first and 64000 later on. An interesting observation was that many miners where throttling down when the difficulty went up. This meant mining the coins remained pretty easy. I set a target for myself at 1000,000,- Infinitecoins (even though they where as good as worthless) and reached that. At least I can claim I have been a cryptocoin millionair!
I have got to get me one of these:
(http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/zimbabwe-one-hundred-trillion-dollars.jpg)
By that time the mining PC had been running for about 2 or 3 months 24/7 and for some reason it crashed. Because I had the amount I wanted I shut it down.
Except for transferring the Infinitecoin and Litecoin wallets to my new PC I didn't do anything with cryptocurrency until early this year. I checked the activity in the Infinitecoin community and found all the coin had been mined a long time ago and there where very few exchanges left where you can trade Infinitecoin. That made me decide to try and trade the Infinitecoin for Litecoin. I found an online exchange called Cryptopia (cryptopia.co.nz). First I tried a small batch of coins to see if the exchange was legit. And it was so I traded all my Infinitecoins for Litecoins. Ofcourse the rate went up just after I traded all my Infinitecoins :palm: Anyway, now I had about 1.7 Litecoins which where worth around 5 euro. I decided to wait until Litecoins would be worth around 80 euro so I could get some money back.
With the Bitcoin rising to beyond insane values I found it time to see what the Litecoins where doing. Much to my surprise they where worth over 100 euro since a few days. Not bad! Time to fire up the Litecoin wallet. That immediately complained that it needed to be updated and the new version didn't like the config file from the version from 4 years ago so I needed to fix that as well. When I got the new Litecoin wallet going it had to fetch all the transactions from last year which took a couple of hours. Meanwhile the Litecoin went up and down wildly. The next problem was to find a way to change the Litecoins for real money. I found anycoindirect.eu which turned out to be run by a Dutch company. They didn't had that many bad reviews so I registered and sold my Litecoins for little over 200 euro. The process was pretty painless. What I liked is that Anycoindirect seems to create a temporary wallet where you send the coins to and they process the order from there. You don't have to keep your cryptocurrency in their wallet. At the time of writing this the Litecoin is worth much more but it might as well have gone down. The money hasn't arrived in my bank account yet so I can't yet comment on whether Anycoindirect is legit or not. Edit: The money just arrived so Anycoindirect delivers on what they promise :-+
I find it interesting how one would setup a website to buy and sell cryptocoins with real money. There has to be some real-time trading algorithm at work otherwise they wouldn't be able to handle the volatility of the cryptocurrency.
All in all it has been interesting. My cryptocurrency wallets are empty now and I made some of my money back but if I factor in electricity costs I'm still in the hole.
Disclaimer: I'm not endorsing investing into cryptocurrency! When I worked at a stock trading company the lady who did the bookkeeping often said: "Rien ne va plus, your money no longer belongs to you".
-
I suspect we're witnessing a massive bubble in cryptocurrencies. Like any bubble, people who manage to sell at the right time and leave others holding the bag will make a killing but I don't see the value holding long term. Anything that volatile is useless as a currency, Bitcoin and the like are speculative investments, buying them is no different than buying some hot stock or must-have toy. If you can make a lot of money in a hurry you can also lose just as much.
-
Interesting read about 'bubbles'. It seems that is yet another fine Dutch invention (like shares): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
-
I see that gold is discussed as a valuable item here above, and I can't help but think that gold as a commodity is somewhat old style economics, as if belonging to an era where the economies of the world was smaller 50 years ago. I am by far no expert on economics, but I have the last few years come to think that so called fractional banking system is the "new" thing in economics, in which, as I understand it, faith is put in a system of circulating printed money and creating layered debt and value, for:
a) having most/all people predictably wake up in the morning and go to work and do stuff (creating value, one way or another)
b) put a price on anything, wages, things and property
c) create wealth by the concept of a predictable income from rent off loans
So, the more complex transactions become, with printed money (basically printed from nowhere as I understand it, though I won't claim to truly understand 'fractional banking') have more people paying more for things, creating more wealth in the other end. Presumably, the other end being able to get more, for less, as opposed to the other end again, who get less, for more. Although I am happy buying stuff from eBay at a nice price, or even buying chocolate where I live, I can't help but wondering if there are poor people doing the hard work, being doomed to live a life in poverty, people providing work, at at some predictably low wage standard, and I suppose there are really a lot of these people around on our planet.
I would think that debt and random price increases is (unfortunately) a valuable thing, barring war and unrest, and what I find disturbing nowadays, is that a serious gaming news website I read, entertain the idea that game developers might as well charge whatever for their games, simply because they would have their reasons for wanting a higher price, which imo is outrageous and silly, as if arbitrarily attributing a value to some commodity would be ok, as if the value of things were to be whatever-you-can-get-away-with (I think this is would be wrong and offensive with mass produced stuff). On a related note, I am sometimes bewildered as I see a laughably high price on chocolate, making me think that, the chocolate is either costly to manufacture with wages, OR, that they sell chocolate as an overly high price to look for trends that indicate that people are willing to actually pay a small fortune for that 200g bar of chocolate, and I occasionally see chocolate being sold at seemingly dumping prices (compared to regular high price on the very same item), a few times throughout the year. This dumping price gimmick is common with hot dogs at summer time where I live.
Edit: Wow, my typos, sry about that.
-
I would think that debt and random price increases is (unfortunately) a valuable thing, barring war and unrest, and what I find disturbing nowadays, is that a serious gaming news website I read, entertain the idea that game developers might as well charge whatever for their games, simply because they would have their reasons for wanting a higher price, which imo is outrageous and silly, as if arbitrarily attributing a value to some commodity would be ok, as if the value of things were to be whatever-you-can-get-away-with (I think this is would be wrong and offensive with mass produced stuff). On a related note, I am sometimes bewildered as I see a laughably high price on chocolate, making me think that, the chocolate is either costly to manufacture with wages, OR, that they sell chocolate as an overly high price to look for trends that indicate that people are willing to actually pay a small fortune for that 200g bar of chocolate, and I occasionally see chocolate being sold at seemingly dumping prices (compared to regular high price on the very same item), a few times throughout the year. This dumping price gimmick is common with hot dogs at summer time where I live.
While the earlier part of your post shows some understanding of currency systems, the latter part shows that you are missing some key parts.
All currencies reflect an approach to making barter efficient. The game writers have something you want. You have something the game writers want. They can set any price they want on their product. You choose whether it is worth it to you. The higher the price they set, the fewer people find the trade worthwhile. This relationship is called the elasticity curve - it relates price to sales. Optional things like games tend to have very steep curves - sales drop precipitously as prices go up. Commodities which have limited or fixed supplies have prices that reflect the relationship to availability. If availability exceeds demand the price drops to something close to the cost of production.
Demand for BITCOINS and other cryptocurrencies currently exceeds production. Prices are growing rapidly. But since there is no inherent use for these digital currencies demand is unpredictable and could easily drop to zero. In a nutshell that is what has happens when a bubble bursts.
-
But the whole reason that the world moved away from using gold or any other currency of intrinsic value is because:
* They can be faked. Fake gold coins where a real issue back in their day.
* They are easily stolen.
* In a lot of cases they are hard to store and hard to move/carry/ship
* they are very difficult to trade with if as the denominations are awkward to work with. If your loaf of bread is not worth a whole gold coin what do you do? Buy 500 loafs and let the 499 rot?
I suppose you could start scrapping off slithers and using jewellers scales to weigh out the 100mg of gold needed to buy your lunch, but if the person behind you in the queue sneezes while you are doing that, lunch could cost you twice as much.
A quick watch of "Requiem of the American Dream" is good craic.
Your list of reasons for abandoning the gold standard is bogus. The problem of detecting fake gold coins was solved thousands of years ago by a gentleman named Archimedes. Better solutions have been developed since and are in place in pawn shops, jewelry stores and any other place that handles gold. Easy theft is somewhat valid, but actually it is not materially different in difficulty from other currencies. Gold is inconvenient for transfers of large sums of money. Not the kind of sums used in daily trade, but the kind of sums banks and countries move around. Look into how heavy the gold equivalent of a car or house is. It won't strain much of anyone. The divisibility of gold coins has never been a serious problem. From pure mechanical division (pieces of eight are an example even though those coins were silver) to use of base coinage for subdivisions the problems were easy to deal with.
The biggest single reason we went away from a gold based currency system was that the supply of gold was not increasing as rapidly as the growth of other things in the economy. If gold mining increases the gold supply by 1% a year then economic growth is limited to 1% or other distortions occur. BITCOIN has the same type of defect.
-
Yeah, Decoman - I agree that some more study of the rational and history for gold as money might be helpful.
Here's (https://medium.com/@alex.stanczyk/a-gold-guys-view-of-crypto-bitcoin-and-blockchain-26e42eeab6b7) an interesting take on the Bitcoin bubble and how it compares to gold. I found the idea that gold is the only money essentially immune to entropy interesting. It's hard to beat 5000 years of history.
-
If gold mining increases the gold supply by 1% a year then economic growth is limited to 1% or other distortions occur. BITCOIN has the same type of defect.
Just for context, all the gold ever mined is around 187,200 tons (a cube roughly 21m on each side), and current mining is 2,500-3,000 tones per year - roughly 1.5% of the current amount, but not really growing (i.e., the annual percentage growth will decrease over time as the total increases linearly).
So yes, gold is very rare, and can't support any sort of economic growth or inflation. If it were backing currency, it's value would have to rise dramatically and continuously. This is essentially what is happening with Bitcoin.
-
So yes, gold is very rare, and can't support any sort of economic growth or inflation.
And there in lies the problem. The earth itself cannot support endless economic growth. Infinite growth cannot occur on a finite planet. Central bank/fiat money shenanigans only push future potential growth forward - but eventually the piper must be paid.
-
So yes, gold is very rare, and can't support any sort of economic growth or inflation.
And there in lies the problem. The earth itself cannot support endless economic growth. Infinite growth cannot occur on a finite planet. Central bank/fiat money shenanigans only push future potential growth forward - but eventually the piper must be paid.
That is assuming that gold is the only thing of real value but it is just as useless as bitcoins because it only gets valuable if we can barter it for something else. With what we call money (either a number printed on a piece of paper, stored as a number in a computer at a bank) we barter value we add to goods for other goods. IMHO it is the value which gets added which drives the economy. What is muddling the water is that there is also a system which speculates on a value becoming more or less valuable.
-
The thing about gold is that it's incredibly useful stuff, unless somebody succeeds where thousands of years of alchemists failed or we manage to figure out how to build chemical elements out of neutrons and protons and such gold is always going to have value. Ignoring the decorative aspect gold has excellent chemical properties. It is highly resistant to oxidation and other chemical attacks, it doesn't break down when exposed to UV or ionizing radiation, it's a fairly good electrical conductor, a superb IR reflector, it's malleable and easy to form into objects, it can be electroplated over less valuable metals and applied mechanically as gold leaf. It has many, many uses.
Civilization and the internet could crumble and gold will still have value as it has had since the dawn of civilization. Bitcoin will likely be as useful as an 8" floppy disk 20 years from now. It has no tangible form, it's not backed by anything at all, and the value fluctuates wildly. I'm not sure why so many people fail to realize that anything that can skyrocket in value like that can plummet even faster. We've seen this play out time after time after time but people never learn.
-
That is assuming that gold is the only thing of real value but it is just as useless as bitcoins because it only gets valuable if we can barter it for something else. With what we call money (either a number printed on a piece of paper, stored as a number in a computer at a bank) we barter value we add to goods for other goods. IMHO it is the value which gets added which drives the economy. What is muddling the water is that there is also a system which speculates on a value becoming more or less valuable.
That's a point that I've tried to make many times to many people. Money is a tool created to facilitate transactions because it's usually inconvenient to drag your goods around and trade them on the spot for someone else's goods or services. Money has little inherent value but we assign value to it when we trade it for something. To be useful as a currency the value needs to be relatively stable, I should be able to trade something for money and later use that money to purchase something else of comparable value whether there's 5 minutes or 5 months between the transactions.
Cryptocurrencies do not fit that description, they are speculative investments, a sort of Ponzi scheme where a person can make a big profit if they get in early and get out while they're ahead. Sooner or later some people are gonna be left holding the bag.
-
That is assuming that gold is the only thing of real value but it is just as useless as bitcoins because it only gets valuable if we can barter it for something else. With what we call money (either a number printed on a piece of paper, stored as a number in a computer at a bank) we barter value we add to goods for other goods. IMHO it is the value which gets added which drives the economy. What is muddling the water is that there is also a system which speculates on a value becoming more or less valuable.
That's a point that I've tried to make many times to many people. Money is a tool created to facilitate transactions because it's usually inconvenient to drag your goods around and trade them on the spot for someone else's goods or services. Money has little inherent value but we assign value to it when we trade it for something. To be useful as a currency the value needs to be relatively stable, I should be able to trade something for money and later use that money to purchase something else of comparable value whether there's 5 minutes or 5 months between the transactions.
Cryptocurrencies do not fit that description, they are speculative investments, a sort of Ponzi scheme where a person can make a big profit if they get in early and get out while they're ahead. Sooner or later some people are gonna be left holding the bag.
Bitcoin is clearly not a currency and never will be a practical currency. That much has become very clear and obvious in my limited experience with it.
It doesn't scale in several ways - transaction rate, transaction fees, use of electricity, limited supply.
So at the moment the whole thing is an unstable mess. But that doesn't mean it will always be the case.
Bitcoin is just one attempt at a crypto currency. I'm not sure how you can say in general that all crypto 'currencies' will never be anything but speculative investments based on that one example.
I think that at some point in the future, something much better will stick its head up and will be usable as a currency.
-
I'm not saying that no cryptocurrency will ever be stable and viable, but the ones that are all the rage right now are all speculative investment pyramid schemes, the skyrocketing value is why people are talking about them.
I'm still skeptical though, a cryptocurrency is useless if you don't have electricity and network access. A system failure, ransomware attack, virus, hack etc could easily result in losing your entire stash. Since it's backed by nothing I don't see what is going to prevent the value from being volatile. With a real currency we can print as much of it as is needed to facilitate the transactions taking place, it's not artificially limited by production, it's limited (in theory) by the value of goods people trade with it. The value is not in the money itself, it's in the goods and services being traded. Paper money could be as simple as a promissory note saying I owe you x amount at a later date for goods you give me now. The value is not in the note itself (money), it's in the goods or services you are entitled to when the time comes for me to hold up my end of the transaction.
-
I'm still skeptical though, a cryptocurrency is useless if you don't have electricity and network access. A system failure, ransomware attack, virus, hack etc could easily result in losing your entire stash.
Money in the bank has similar limitations but it is strongly regulated. Nevertheless you could loose (part of) your money if the bank goes belly-up.
-
Money in the bank has similar limitations but it is strongly regulated. Nevertheless you could loose (part of) your money if the bank goes belly-up.
In the US, banks are federally insured to prevent exactly this from happening. That's not to say it's foolproof, the entire economy could collapse but at that point I'll probably have bigger issues.
-
I'm not saying that no cryptocurrency will ever be stable and viable, but the ones that are all the rage right now are all speculative investment pyramid schemes, the skyrocketing value is why people are talking about them.
I'm still skeptical though, a cryptocurrency is useless if you don't have electricity and network access. A system failure, ransomware attack, virus, hack etc could easily result in losing your entire stash. Since it's backed by nothing I don't see what is going to prevent the value from being volatile. With a real currency we can print as much of it as is needed to facilitate the transactions taking place, it's not artificially limited by production, it's limited (in theory) by the value of goods people trade with it. The value is not in the money itself, it's in the goods and services being traded. Paper money could be as simple as a promissory note saying I owe you x amount at a later date for goods you give me now. The value is not in the note itself (money), it's in the goods or services you are entitled to when the time comes for me to hold up my end of the transaction.
Right - I don't think it is a pyramid scheme though. It is just rampant speculation based on an assumption that bitcoin is the future. People haven't yet worked out that bitcoin simply is too limited to be a major currency player of the future, and therefore the limited supply isn't relevant as there will not be a large demand for it. When they do it will surely die a rapid death.
Here in NZ I think the vast majority of transactions are electronic, so requiring network access is not really a change from the norm for us. So perhaps I can see that part working fairly easily compared to other countries which are more cash based.
If you pare it back to brass tacks, and take the emotion out of it, then I do wonder why a future crypto currency couldn't work in the same way as paper money?
Why couldn't it be regulated, backed by something and all of the other technical money type things? That would be rather different to the way bitcoin works, but so what?
Even bitcoin has some smart protections. For example I have a paper code that allows me to regenerate my wallet instantly _myself_ if it gets lost or wiped. That is a pretty cool feature, I would love to be able to do that with cash. I can password protect it to stop anyone who finds it from spending the money. I can spread it around very easily to spread the risk.
-
Right - I don't think it is a pyramid scheme though.
Not so much a pyramid scheme (where everybody up the chain gets a cut of transactions at the bottom), and not a Ponzi scheme (which presents itself as an investment, but just pays out money from fresh investors to exiting one).
In a few years, it will most likely have its own term. Maybe "Fake money".
-
I am really surprised how many people do not understand the real character of "money" and what's the real meaning of "fake money" aka "fiat-money", what we have this years and we are forced to live with it. Of course, from this perspective, one can not understand the actual meaning of a more modern independent international monetary system, otherwise applied restrictive by banks and governments to the working population. Other states like Japan have already recognized this and are using Bitcoin officially as a widely recognized currency in their national payment system. That works very well, other states will follow.
-
People who whine that money is debt and fiat and fake are just saying rain is wet. There are dozens of conspiracy theory documentaries based around the assumption that "money" has any actual worth. Some coins are roughly worth their value, notes are just "I promise to pay on demand"... trading "IOU" tokens.
I found this very interesting to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3kEehmBpE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3kEehmBpE)
-
If you pare it back to brass tacks, and take the emotion out of it, then I do wonder why a future crypto currency couldn't work in the same way as paper money?
Why couldn't it be regulated, backed by something and all of the other technical money type things? That would be rather different to the way bitcoin works, but so what?
It's worth remembering that paper money as we know it started out as a private, as opposed to public, governmental, scheme. There's still vestiges of that here in the United Kingdom - money in England and Wales is issued by the Bank of England, in Northern Ireland and Scotland notes are issued by seven private banks and are not technically legal tender (albeit they are treated as if they were by the local populace) but are promissory notes.
There's no reason that cryptocash couldn't be issued privately in exactly the same way. This ought to have happened some time ago. One thing that has been holding this back is that many fundamental patents that would have made a cryptographic cash equivalent practical were held by David Chaum, who has a long history of failing to either use them effectively or opening them up for others to use. Chaum cracked several of the fundamental problems including providing cryptocash with a similar level of anonymity and privacy as real cash, and preventing the 'double spending' of cryptocash 'notes' (which, quite obviously, can be physically copied as many times as one likes). The bitcoin blockchain (which is a very old idea, spruced up and repurposed, see Merkle Tree) effectively prevents 'double spending'.
Chaum's patents are gradually expiring and it can't be too long before some enterprising issuing bank picks up on this and exploits it.
-
If you pare it back to brass tacks, and take the emotion out of it, then I do wonder why a future crypto currency couldn't work in the same way as paper money?
Why couldn't it be regulated, backed by something and all of the other technical money type things? That would be rather different to the way bitcoin works, but so what?
It's worth remembering that paper money as we know it started out as a private, as opposed to public, governmental, scheme. There's still vestiges of that here in the United Kingdom - money in England and Wales is issued by the Bank of England, in Northern Ireland and Scotland notes are issued by seven private banks and are not technically legal tender (albeit they are treated as if they were by the local populace) but are promissory notes.
It's irritating to be frank as it's almost entirely academic, but can cause you so much hassle if you forget to lift your cash at the airport.
Also note:
"Equally, Bank of England notes are not legal tender in Scotland and Northern Ireland."
I only found this out and I am looking forward to screwing up an English person's day / weekend as soon as I can. Tit for tat. I have had it done to me many times.
-
Chaum cracked several of the fundamental problems including providing cryptocash with a similar level of anonymity and privacy as real cash
Yes, with one more decisive extension. Real cash, consumption money at first is issued exclusively by a commercial bank. So it is not anonym at all, for example to pay a little bigger bill cash as, let's say, a used car, and you bring or want get this cash from the bank, not without declaring officially from whom to where the money comes and goes. That can't happen if you pay directly with bitcoin using its anonymous public and private keystrukture. This commercial and state surveillance is more true to the normal citizen as the money laundering criminal who has still other possibilities.
-
At a friend's house last night, with several non-tech people, and bitcoin came up. Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth about not having gone into it years ago! And yet none of them really had any idea what bitcoin is or how it works, blockchain, etc. And when I asked, neither did any of them understand what the current fiat money is, or how it comes into existence in the economy. They sort-of understood the difference between gold-backed and fiat currency.
Today, I find the email phishers are starting to cotton onto the public bitcoin-yearning. See pic of the spam mail I received. An attached .exe file. Tell me, should I click on it? (jk)
-
Chaum cracked several of the fundamental problems including providing cryptocash with a similar level of anonymity and privacy as real cash
Yes, with one more decisive extension. Real cash, consumption money at first is issued exclusively by a commercial bank. So it is not anonym at all, for example to pay a little bigger bill cash as, let's say, a used car, and you bring or want get this cash from the bank, not without declaring officially from whom to where the money comes and goes. That can't happen if you pay directly with bitcoin using its anonymous public and private keystrukture. This commercial and state surveillance is more true to the normal citizen as the money laundering criminal who has still other possibilities.
I'm certainly no expert on Bitcoin so may well be wrong, but it doesn't seem particularly anonymous to me.
It is a public ledger and all transactions are visible to anyone.
The anonymous aspect is just that nobody knows your address unless you tell them, and that you can generate a new address anytime.
So 'they' just need enough surveillance to associate an address with you, and/or with the entity that you are paying.
I imagine that the internet 'metadata' that is supposedly collected constantly, would go a long way towards doing that - or would at least considerably narrow down a list of possibilities.
There are not many Bitcoin transactions per second, so relating the events based on timing seems plausible to me.
-
Tell me, should I click on it?
Nothing happens. The picture is growing ... :P
-
I'm certainly no expert on Bitcoin so may well be wrong, but it doesn't seem particularly anonymous to me.
It is a public ledger and all transactions are visible to anyone.
The anonymous aspect is just that nobody knows your address unless you tell them, and that you can generate a new address anytime.
So 'they' just need enough surveillance to associate an address with you, and/or with the entity that you are paying.
I imagine that the internet 'metadata' that is supposedly collected constantly, would go a long way towards doing that - or would at least considerably narrow down a list of possibilities.
There are not many Bitcoin transactions per second, so relating the events based on timing seems plausible to me.
I'm also not an expert too. As i see, you're right:
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/anonymity/ (https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/anonymity/)
But, if creditor and debtor both accept bitcoins, then you don't need a bank anymoore.
-
I'm certainly no expert on Bitcoin so may well be wrong, but it doesn't seem particularly anonymous to me.
It is a public ledger and all transactions are visible to anyone.
The anonymous aspect is just that nobody knows your address unless you tell them, and that you can generate a new address anytime.
So 'they' just need enough surveillance to associate an address with you, and/or with the entity that you are paying.
I imagine that the internet 'metadata' that is supposedly collected constantly, would go a long way towards doing that - or would at least considerably narrow down a list of possibilities.
There are not many Bitcoin transactions per second, so relating the events based on timing seems plausible to me.
I'm also not an expert too. As i see, you're right:
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/anonymity/ (https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/anonymity/)
But, if creditor and debtor both accept bitcoins, then you don't need a bank anymoore.
Yes, avoiding the need for a bank, and so lining their pockets, is an honourable goal.
This looks interesting. It doesn't require miners to validate transactions - which is a huge disadvantage of Bitcoin.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609771/a-cryptocurrency-without-a-blockchain-has-been-built-to-outperform-bitcoin/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609771/a-cryptocurrency-without-a-blockchain-has-been-built-to-outperform-bitcoin/)
-
I wonder what IS crypto currency in some practical sense?
Would you sort of get paid by being given some string of numbers, and then.. when trying to pay with that string of data, the string data is hashed and then it is determined if the string data has value and maybe that data can be altered to be adjusted up or down?
Somehow, I just do not trust cryptography given the terrible state of computer security and the lack of privacy. I actually wrote a wall of text here about my naive thoughts about crypto currency, but I realized I actually have no good idea of how it works, so I deleted my initial text. I could say stuff referencing stuff from cryptography, but I can't connect the dots to show how cryptography works together with how crypto currency works. Would 'fully homomorphic encryption' be a part of future crypto currency?
Wild speculation, knowing nothing about crypto currency (because doing that is fun):
I can't help but wonder if maybe crypto currency could be said to be a hash system that sort of works like security by obscurity, in the sense of trusting data strings to hash as expected within a short time, but then, if you just hash them further, you could reveal even more data, as if the data strings could be backdoored that way.
I am curious to learn more about a vague question of mine: what a future "society" would be, if "society" was then being 100% dependent on using crypto currency? Would everything be just dandy, or could it be the proverbial police state? (If it really turns out that *somehow* crypto currency is just a means to control, but isn't really secure.) Maybe some money could have more privacy than others, being more difficult to hash, and then others would have less privacy, being easy to hash for meta tags as per design, as I wildly imagine for fun.
I can also vaguely imagine future crypto currency in the future existing as some kind of ephemeral string of numbers that are all controlled by some over arching crypto scheme (imagine ephermeral Diffie Hellman crypto for one time use (ideally)), as if, the data strings sat in a huge compartmentalized computer that ran 24/7, simply recreating data strings all day long, all year, as if, so to speak, re-print physical money to create this new design on paper money, to control who gets to use this money. :)
-
I wonder what IS crypto currency in some practical sense?
Would you sort of get paid by being given some string of numbers, and then.. when trying to pay with that string of data, the string data is hashed and then it is determined if the string data has value and maybe that data can be altered to be adjusted up or down?
Somehow, I just do not trust cryptography given the terrible state of computer security and the lack of privacy. I actually wrote a wall of text here about my naive thoughts about crypto currency, but I realized I actually have no good idea of how it works. I could say stuff based on cryptography, but I can't connect the dots to just how crypto currency works.
Wild speculation, knowing nothing about crypto currency (because doing that is fun):
I can't help but wonder if maybe crypto currency could be said to be a hash system that sort of works like security by obscurity, in the sense of trusting data strings to hash as expected within a short time, but then, if you just hash them further, you could reveal even more data, as if the data strings could be backdoored that way.
I am curious to learn more about a vague question of mine: what a future "society" would be, if "society" was then being 100% dependent on using crypto currency? Would everything be just dandy, or could it be the proverbial police state? (If it really turns out that *somehow* crypto currency is just a means to control, but isn't really secure.)
Fundamentally it is based on variations on a one way algorithm. Given the question it is simple to calculate the answer. But given the answer it is very difficult to calculate the question.
There are practical security issues as well. But they can be managed, in the same way as you would manage normal money.
I wouldn't worry too much about a future society. None of the future society stuff I read in 1980 about 2000 was right, and I don't think we have all got any smarter since then!
-
I am really surprised how many people do not understand the real character of "money"
What I pay food, rent and taxes with. It's never going to be bitcoin, multiple bucks of transaction fees and huge clearing times and all (Lightning is not a solution, it's unintuitive and needs vast amounts of bitcoin locked up to function for regular payments).
Anonymity with regards to bank and government is ridiculously overrated, almost everyone in first world nations except the criminals and tax evaders would prefer to be able to recover their account/money if they lost their wallet vs anonymity.
-
But, if creditor and debtor both accept bitcoins, then you don't need a bank anymoore.
Yes, avoiding the need for a bank, and so lining their pockets, is an honourable goal.
What exactly is the benefit if your replace a bank (and their fees) with a hugely inefficient, decentralized structure (with much higher transaction fees), plus a multitude of shady "exchanges" which somehow lose large sums of Bitcoin every now and then?
-
I am really surprised how many people do not understand the real character of "money"
What I pay food, rent and taxes with. It's never going to be bitcoin, multiple bucks of transaction fees and huge clearing times and all (Lightning is not a solution, it's unintuitive and needs vast amounts of bitcoin locked up to function for regular payments).
Over time, methods will develop to improve these technical disadvantages. What we all need, is a independent international paying system. What we have now, is a opaque crashing system, which drives people into total surveillance and dependency when cash is increasingly being pushed back.
That not intuitiveness (not unintuitiveness) blockchain handling remembers me to the tcp/ip protocol at the beginning of the internet, that is also an infrastructure that we needed because of our cultural development.
But I'm certainly not such a dreamer who automatically believes in the goodness of bitcoins, i'm watching this development. What could it hinder is professional trading of the big 'players' with it, and judicial intervention by prescribing state-controlled alternatives, or mock currencies like 'e-coins'.
-
What exactly is the benefit if your replace a bank (and their fees) with a hugely inefficient, decentralized structure (with much higher transaction fees), plus a multitude of shady "exchanges" which somehow lose large sums of Bitcoin every now and then?
The biggest one. You can be switched off existentially! You don't believe?
(Enemy of the State)
-
But, if creditor and debtor both accept bitcoins, then you don't need a bank anymoore.
Yes, avoiding the need for a bank, and so lining their pockets, is an honourable goal.
What exactly is the benefit if your replace a bank (and their fees) with a hugely inefficient, decentralized structure (with much higher transaction fees), plus a multitude of shady "exchanges" which somehow lose large sums of Bitcoin every now and then?
Pretty much the entire problem with bitcoin transaction cost and inefficiency is the 1 MB limit on block size, together with there being only one block about every eight minutes. [1]
On average there are about 2500 transactions in each block and about 5 transactions a second.
The worldwide VISA network processes on average about 1750 transactions a second (though much more at peak times), so bitcoin is a factor of about 350 away from being able to match it.
A good forward-looking upgrade to bitcoin would be to allow blocks to be up to 1 GB in size, a thousand time more than now. The blocks would not actually grow to that size until bitcoin actually does rival VISA. At that point the cost per transaction (all else being equal to today) would drop from $100 to $0.10, which is entirely reasonable.
The mining difficulty (finding a nonce that makes the block hash have enough zeros) does not increase with the size of the block, as you make a partial checksum of the entire block and then just search for the trailing bytes that make it work.
If bitcoin had a VISA-rivalling 1 GB block every 8 minutes, that would be an average data transfer rate to each copy of the blockchain of around 2 megabytes per second. That's well within the capability of any modern home internet connection (or even mobile) and will only get easier in future. But we are very far from that now .. at the moment it's only 2 KB per second. You can do that easily on 1990's dial-up.
*Storing* a copy of the blockchain at a 1 GB block every 8 minutes would need 65 TB of new disk space every year. 3 TB disk drives are currently $60 so that's about $4000 of disks needed per year's data. You're probably not going to want to do that yourself at home, but in fact it's within reach of many people if they really wanted to. Don't forget -- that's for bitcoin with three times higher transaction volume than VISA has right now, world-wide. Today's actual bitcoin blockchain uses $4 of disk per year. And prices are only going to come down.
[1] the target is every ten minutes but it's more like eight minutes at the moment because of the growing number of miners and the hash difficulty only being adjusted every 2016 blocks (11 days or so).
-
@brucehoult,
that's what i mean with "Over time, methods will develop to improve these technical disadvantages" :)
-
Ethereum is trying to move from proof of work (where miners validate transactions, and you have a few hundred transactions in each block and so on) to proof of stake, where "miners" will no longer have to perform complex computations using video cards or processors to mine blocks.
This will also allow a huge increase in the number of transactions that can be processed per second (a few days ago the ethereum network processed more transactions a day than bitcoin network processed) and it will also work extremely way with the concept of sharding which would allow huge parallelization
It's gonna be a few months at the very least, probably 1-2 years or more... but it's gonna be implemented
For the curious :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ3IqLDf-oo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ3IqLDf-oo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0TGpp2SV-w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0TGpp2SV-w)
// Ethereum's problem (kinda) is that it's really hard on the storage ... if you want to hold to be a full node, holding the full blockchain which is now probably over 100 GB in size - i have the "simplified" blockchain and it's 68 GB and there's a huge amount of seeks and reading small bits from random places each time some new information is added.
You really need a SSD to keep up with the additions today when you don't have a huge amount of transactions.... sharding may help by creating chunks of 50 to maybe a few hundreds blocks and limiting seeks and changes within the files for those blocks
-
Over time, methods will develop to improve these technical disadvantages. What we all need, is a independent international paying system. What we have now, is a opaque crashing system, which drives people into total surveillance and dependency when cash is increasingly being pushed back.
Surveillance is a necessity in our multicultural low trust society, when I trust government more than my neighbours I will sacrifice privacy from government for security and equity (if I have to suffer taxes everyone does). Without pervasive surveillance freedoms I care about would be heavier constrained than they are, more restrictions on over the counter sales of household chemicals for instance, or even something as basic as the components to easily DIY drones.
As it stands I see no pressing need to avoid government surveillance or allow my neighbours to avoid it, if I lived in Japan I'd probably feel differently. You may think this attitude is paving the road to hell, but I think it is already paved ... this is just making the ride more comfortable.
Paypal and credit cards need some decent competition, but we'll get there eventually without cryptocurrencies.
PS. why can't blockchains simply rebase occasionally? Pick commonly agreed on points in time, all nodes independently rebase and hash the result ... if the majority agrees on the rebase result, start using that? What's the problem?
-
But, if creditor and debtor both accept bitcoins, then you don't need a bank anymoore.
Yes, avoiding the need for a bank, and so lining their pockets, is an honourable goal.
What exactly is the benefit if your replace a bank (and their fees) with a hugely inefficient, decentralized structure (with much higher transaction fees), plus a multitude of shady "exchanges" which somehow lose large sums of Bitcoin every now and then?
The trouble with the banks is not really their fees, although on a personal finance level of course that matter.
The problem with the banks is that they are now the primary "wealth" generators. It is them who are allowed to "print the money" as it were and control the money supply.
This used to be done by governments. When society needed a cash injection to the money supply they would print some money, employ a whole load of people and carry out public works projects. This money would then eventually bubble it's way up to the banks and investment firms.
Today they just give it to the banks. The banks the LEND it to society. This creates even more money in the form of interest. All of which goes to the banks and the effective debt of society increases. "Trickle down economics" just doesn't add up. The ONLY single way to get money from the top to the bottom is to physically work for the money generators and receive a salary.
When a bank lends you $1000 and expects $1500 repayment over the full term, they write an asset on to their books of $1500. So in a few key strokes $500 has been created in as real as terms as you get today. They then lend that $1500 out to someone else and expect $2250 back, so they write another $750 into existence. Obviously when the chain of loans begins to default we have a credit collapse like 2007. Banks are now usually limited to 8 times the actual backing funds to help prevent massive collapses.
However governments are STILL 'printing' millions of dollars a day and giving it to the banks in quantitative easing. The banks then generate 8 times that in debt to finance societies needs. The interest alone is effectively unpayable. The UK government has been releasing miss leading figures on their deficit for decades. They always put it across as if they are lowering the public debt, when they are only lowering the rate that debt is expanding. If you look at it carefully you can see that repaying the debt is effectively impossible.
If only the plot in Mr. Robot could work.
-
Governments are still printing money and handing it out to the economy. The thought that the Fed or the ECB will ever substantially decrease the amount of government debt they hold is laughable to anyone but central bankers and naive people. A few palms get greased while the debt travels from government to central bank so everyone can poorly pretend it's not monetization, because admitting the truth would blow central banker minds, but in the big picture it really is no different from monetization.
Only Japan is relatively unapologetic about it, that's why central bankers and economists allied to them hate Abe so much ... the emperor has no clothes, central bankers have no real power or independence, it's just a charade which has outlived its usefulness.
-
Surveillance is a necessity in our multicultural low trust society, when I trust government more than my neighbours I will sacrifice privacy from government for security and equity (if I have to suffer taxes everyone does). Without pervasive surveillance freedoms I care about would be heavier constrained than they are, more restrictions on over the counter sales of household chemicals for instance, or even something as basic as the components to easily DIY drones.
As it stands I see no pressing need to avoid government surveillance or allow my neighbours to avoid it, if I lived in Japan I'd probably feel differently. You may think this attitude is paving the road to hell, but I think it is already paved ... this is just making the ride more comfortable.
Paypal and credit cards need some decent competition, but we'll get there eventually without cryptocurrencies.
PS. why can't blockchains simply rebase occasionally? Pick commonly agreed on points in time, all nodes independently rebase and hash the result ... if the majority agrees on the rebase result, start using that? What's the problem?
Yes, i understand what you mean. From your subjective understanding this may be conclusive for you. You are free to believe. But for me, please excuse me, the general situation, as well global as also national speaks a different language in terms of a state's over gripping of the fundamental human rights of its own and other citizens.
-
PS. why can't blockchains simply rebase occasionally? Pick commonly agreed on points in time, all nodes independently rebase and hash the result ... if the majority agrees on the rebase result, start using that? What's the problem?
I can't see any reason to rebase.
Assuming you're alluding to git (which has a very similar structure to blockchain), what you want is "git clone --depth <N>" or "git clone --shallow-since=<date>"
It's important that someone -- preferably a few someones -- keep the full blockchain history. Someone needs to do that for tracability, to prevent double-spending etc. But not everyone needs to. Knowing the hash of the currently last block is all you really need as a miner.
-
I can't see any reason to rebase.
Storage requirements and time necessary to start a new "full" node.
It's important that someone -- preferably a few someones -- keep the full blockchain history. Someone needs to do that for tracability, to prevent double-spending etc. But not everyone needs to. Knowing the hash of the currently last block is all you really need as a miner.
The new base would still have an accurate state, it just wouldn't have the entire history. Only a tiny amount of history is necessary to prevent double spending and I'd think traceability wouldn't be a selling point for bitcoin users :)
-
I can't see any reason to rebase.
Storage requirements and time necessary to start a new "full" node.
It's important that someone -- preferably a few someones -- keep the full blockchain history. Someone needs to do that for tracability, to prevent double-spending etc. But not everyone needs to. Knowing the hash of the currently last block is all you really need as a miner.
The new base would still have an accurate state, it just wouldn't have the entire history. Only a tiny amount of history is necessary to prevent double spending and I'd think traceability wouldn't be a selling point for bitcoin users :)
So that's not rebase. That's partial history. As I showed and explained.
-
Yes, I meant rebase. As in "To modify core data from which other data is derived in such a way that the final meaning is unchanged." (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rebase)
A partial history is useless to a miner, he needs to verify transactions unless he wants to leave the block empty. As I said before, currently fees exceed the value of mined bitcoins ... so leaving it empty wouldn't be very smart in that case. A blockchain designed to be rebased would work forward from the most recent rebased address contents (and probably the one before that, to rule out desynchronization issues) instead of the complete transaction history.
-
How does this work, from "somewhere" the money comes to those who mine?
Organized chinese bitcoin mining is massive, millions $ a day. Cheap electricity, state land, their own ASIC's. The pictures are impressive:
Bitmain http://www.altcointoday.com/tour-of-one-of-the-largest-bitcoin-mining-operation (http://www.altcointoday.com/tour-of-one-of-the-largest-bitcoin-mining-operation)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/business/bitcoin-mine-china.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/business/bitcoin-mine-china.html)
It looks like a big money leak to me.
-
But, if creditor and debtor both accept bitcoins, then you don't need a bank anymoore.
Yes, avoiding the need for a bank, and so lining their pockets, is an honourable goal.
What exactly is the benefit if your replace a bank (and their fees) with a hugely inefficient, decentralized structure (with much higher transaction fees), plus a multitude of shady "exchanges" which somehow lose large sums of Bitcoin every now and then?
Banks here in NZ, make enormous profits for their parent Australian companies, and their customer service is trending to zero.
Having some option to operate outside of their sphere of influence would be very satisfying.
You read that comment too literally. I would not replace my current bank right now with Bitcoin, and probably never would. I think Bitcoin is unusable as a currency for several reasons. However the world of crypto currencies is bigger than just Bitcoin, so look beyond. It is conceivable that something will appear that is usable in the way that Bitcoin aspired to be.
But I would have no problem supplementing it with a crypto currency as some point in the future - one that didn't have the disadvantages of bitcoin.
-
You read that comment too literally. I would not replace my current bank right now with Bitcoin, and probably never would. I think Bitcoin is unusable as a currency for several reasons. However the world of crypto currencies is bigger than just Bitcoin, so look beyond. It is conceivable that something will appear that is usable in the way that Bitcoin aspired to be.
There are many, like IOTA and Cardano (ADA) to name a few.
I actually like the new Cardano wallet Daedelus, and an now accepting ADA donations ;)
(https://www.eevblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cardano.png)
-
(https://www.eevblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cardano.png)
Remind me -- what's the point of a QR code printed on a screen? :P
Seems like a link or something might do?
-
I think for any cryptocurrency to work as a currency, there has to be someone somewhere with the authority to "print" more of it as needed. Since a currency has no inherent value and exists as a means of transferring existing value, it doesn't work to have it exist in limited amounts. That will always lead to volatility and speculative investing which is not what a currency is for.
-
I think for any cryptocurrency to work as a currency, there has to be someone somewhere with the authority to "print" more of it as needed. Since a currency has no inherent value and exists as a means of transferring existing value, it doesn't work to have it exist in limited amounts. That will always lead to volatility and speculative investing which is not what a currency is for.
You seem to have internalized the idea that government has the right to steal from you some percentage of your savings through inflation.
I would counter that we can no longer afford inflationary currencies, as they reward immediate consumption and penalize savings. This is exactly why we are deluged with won hung lo garbage. In a deflationary economy these products would not exist as no rational actor would waste their precious money on something that would not serve their goals and last.
-
You read that comment too literally. I would not replace my current bank right now with Bitcoin, and probably never would. I think Bitcoin is unusable as a currency for several reasons. However the world of crypto currencies is bigger than just Bitcoin, so look beyond. It is conceivable that something will appear that is usable in the way that Bitcoin aspired to be.
There are many, like IOTA and Cardano (ADA) to name a few.
I actually like the new Cardano wallet Daedelus, and an now accepting ADA donations ;)
(https://www.eevblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cardano.png)
Yes they do look good compared to Bitcoin. Much more practical on efficiency, scalability and fees.
Interesting times...
-
I think for any cryptocurrency to work as a currency, there has to be someone somewhere with the authority to "print" more of it as needed. Since a currency has no inherent value and exists as a means of transferring existing value, it doesn't work to have it exist in limited amounts. That will always lead to volatility and speculative investing which is not what a currency is for.
You seem to have internalized the idea that government has the right to steal from you some percentage of your savings through inflation.
I would counter that we can no longer afford inflationary currencies, as they reward immediate consumption and penalize savings. This is exactly why we are deluged with won hung lo garbage. In a deflationary economy these products would not exist as no rational actor would waste their precious money on something that would not serve their goals and last.
Slow, steady inflation is critical to keeping an economy moving. It means people and companies re-invest their money into the economy instead of letting it sit and rot in a bank account. With deflation, there's little or no incentive to invest your money. The stock market would dry up, interest rates for loans would go through the roof, etc.
-
I think for any cryptocurrency to work as a currency, there has to be someone somewhere with the authority to "print" more of it as needed. Since a currency has no inherent value and exists as a means of transferring existing value, it doesn't work to have it exist in limited amounts. That will always lead to volatility and speculative investing which is not what a currency is for.
I agree because it makes perfect sense. The amount of currency required grows as the economy grows (= more value gets added). The current cryptocurrencies can't be produced when necessary and are not available in a infinite amount. A cryptocurrency which has some chance of being useful to replace money needs to adjust the mining difficulty based on it's value so the value stays constant and it needs to allow for an infinite number of coins.
Side note: I'm not an economist but for a economy to run well there has to be some deflation because it stimulates spending money, investing money (instead of storing it in an old matrass and making it unavailable for economic growth) and decreases debt.
-
All this in mind, this is why I have high hopes for Ripple (XRP). It's not designed to replace banks and traditional currency, rather compliment it. It's also doing great in terms of it's stability and value.
-
Side note: I'm not an economist but for a economy to run well there has to be some deflation because it stimulates spending money, investing money (instead of storing it in an old matrass and making it unavailable for economic growth) and decreases debt.
That's inflation, but yes you're right.
-
With deflation, there's little or no incentive to invest your money. The stock market would dry up, interest rates for loans would go through the roof, etc.
precisely
This fight is already over save for the gnashing of teeth. Humanity has finally been given a choice, Gresham's law will dictate the outcome. No more will we be at liberty to spend the resources of future generations. Embrace the new reality, believe it or not opportunities abound in it.
-
You seem to have internalized the idea that government has the right to steal from you some percentage of your savings through inflation.
I would counter that we can no longer afford inflationary currencies, as they reward immediate consumption and penalize savings. This is exactly why we are deluged with won hung lo garbage. In a deflationary economy these products would not exist as no rational actor would waste their precious money on something that would not serve their goals and last.
But you're assuming that the currency itself has inherent value which generally speaking it doesn't. If I want to buy something from you and I give you a $10 bill what I'm essentially saying is "I don't currently have anything to trade you so I'm giving you this note that indicates I owe you X value in goods or services." You then can use that note to trade for (buy) other goods or services from somebody else because it's backed by the fact that I owe some value to the system, which I presumably paid in to get the $10 bill that I gave you.
The money itself does not have any significant value of its own, the money is used to transfer value because it's a lot easier to buy and sell using money than to haul the physical goods around to trade them on the spot. If you try to use an artificially limited commodity as currency then you end up with the current situation where people are buying and selling the currency itself instead of using it to facilitate other transactions. Bitcoin for example has no actual value, heck it doesn't even physically exist. You can't make anything out of it, you can't even touch it, the value is sky high purely due to people speculating that it will go higher so that they can sell it off to somebody else before the value crashes. At some point people will start cashing out and that will cascade into more people cashing out and the whole thing will come crashing down, it's inevitable. This has happened countless times throughout history, the previously mentioned tulip mania is a great example. Magic cards, baseball cards, Beanie Babies, there have been numerous smaller scale examples like that. Crypto coins are no more a currency than baseball cards, both are backed by nothing but speculation.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_SVexaSMwk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_SVexaSMwk)
-
Crypto coins are no more a currency than baseball cards, both are backed by nothing but speculation.
Don't confuse speculation with tangible backing.
Speculation is what drives the price relative to other currencies.
The "backing" is based on people's trust in the thing, in which it is essentially no different to US dollar currency, or even gold to a large extent.
-
Crypto coins are no more a currency than baseball cards, both are backed by nothing but speculation.
Don't confuse speculation with tangible backing.
Speculation is what drives the price relative to other currencies.
The "backing" is based on people's trust in the thing, in which it is essentially no different to US dollar currency, or even gold to a large extent.
Don't forget, there are quite a few crypto currencies with actual purpose beyond just being "worth something" (and Bitcoin isn't one of them).
Look at Ethereum and IOTA for example, they have the ability to create smart contracts not to mention ETH is far quicker to transact than Bitcoin is (minutes vs. tens of minutes).
Ripple is another, it's able to perform transactions within seconds at a rate of thousands per second, that's up there with the big credit card companies. In fact Ripple has already been adopted by a lot of big companies with some of the big banks in Australia trialling the technology, I believe even American Express are on-board. It's essentially aiming to be a replacement for SWIFT. Rather than taking days or weeks to transfer money, it's done in seconds at fractions of a cent, the cost
savings alone are enormous.
Comparing crypto currencies is like comparing apples to capacitors.
One fact remains, crypto is here to stay whether you like it or not. It won't replace traditional, government-backed currency any time soon, but rather live alongside it. As long as you can convert any kind of crypto into money, it's worth something.
-
As long as you can convert any kind of crypto into money, it's worth something.
Excuse, not "money", but in the underlying values and services which one comparatively also gets for a amount of money.
-
I think for any cryptocurrency to work as a currency, there has to be someone somewhere with the authority to "print" more of it as needed. Since a currency has no inherent value and exists as a means of transferring existing value, it doesn't work to have it exist in limited amounts. That will always lead to volatility and speculative investing which is not what a currency is for.
I agree because it makes perfect sense. The amount of currency required grows as the economy grows (= more value gets added). The current cryptocurrencies can't be produced when necessary and are not available in a infinite amount. A cryptocurrency which has some chance of being useful to replace money needs to adjust the mining difficulty based on it's value so the value stays constant and it needs to allow for an infinite number of coins.
The total value of currency needs to grow as the economy (and use) grows, but that doesn't mean you need more units of the currency. It's quite ok for the value of each unit to increase instead, provided that the currency is infinitely divisible.
Gold is something close to infinitely divisible. Certainly we've never got to the point that you can buy a house with a gram of gold or a loaf of bread with a microgram and it's getting hard to manage.
Bitcoin is actually infinitely divisible. You can keep adding decimal places as long as you want to.
At the moment, all amounts in the bitcoin protocol and blockchain are measured in units of 0.00000001 BTC. At the current price of near US$18000 per bitcoin there are 55 such units to one cent.
Which means the current protocol perhaps wasn't quite as forward-looking as they expected nine years ago. But anyway nothing needs to change until one BTC is worth a million dollars, or even a few million (you can't buy anything with 1c anyway).
-
I think for any cryptocurrency to work as a currency, there has to be someone somewhere with the authority to "print" more of it as needed. Since a currency has no inherent value and exists as a means of transferring existing value, it doesn't work to have it exist in limited amounts. That will always lead to volatility and speculative investing which is not what a currency is for.
I agree because it makes perfect sense. The amount of currency required grows as the economy grows (= more value gets added). The current cryptocurrencies can't be produced when necessary and are not available in a infinite amount. A cryptocurrency which has some chance of being useful to replace money needs to adjust the mining difficulty based on it's value so the value stays constant and it needs to allow for an infinite number of coins.
The total value of currency needs to grow as the economy (and use) grows, but that doesn't mean you need more units of the currency. It's quite ok for the value of each unit to increase instead, provided that the currency is infinitely divisible.
Gold is something close to infinitely divisible. Certainly we've never got to the point that you can buy a house with a gram of gold or a loaf of bread with a microgram and it's getting hard to manage.
Bitcoin is actually infinitely divisible. You can keep adding decimal places as long as you want to.
But the problem with doing that is that existing Bitcoins increase in value which is called deflation. Deflation is bad because it increases value of money without someone doing any work (adding the value). In the end that will bring the economy to a grinding halt. Hence gold and bitcoins are unsuitable to use as money.
-
In the end that will bring the economy to a grinding halt. Hence gold and bitcoins are unsuitable to use as money.
We've already done that one and the purchasing power parity of gold by weight has remained remarkably constant from ancient times to today. The example used was that 1 oz of gold would buy a Roman Senator's robes in early history and a US Senator's business suit today. Gold generally does not inflate or deflate, it's the currencies that are used to price gold that undergo the inflation and deflation.
-
In the end that will bring the economy to a grinding halt. Hence gold and bitcoins are unsuitable to use as money.
We've already done that one and the purchasing power parity of gold by weight has remained remarkably constant from ancient times to today. The example used was that 1 oz of gold would buy a Roman Senator's robes in early history and a US Senator's business suit today. Gold generally does not inflate or deflate, it's the currencies that are used to price gold that undergo the inflation and deflation.
That is only because we have let gold go as basis for the value of money. Nowadays there are many more senators on earth so you'd need many times more gold which would drive the value up (=deflate).
-
The "backing" is based on people's trust in the thing, in which it is essentially no different to US dollar currency, or even gold to a large extent.
Price controls, rationing and other central planning measures get a bad name because it's usually communists which use these tools and they screw everything up. They have been used by less incompetent governments too and despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of economists that they did more harm than good, it doesn't necessarily crash the economy. You don't need trust to place value in money (or rationing coupons) in those cases, just common sense.
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
-
...the governmen...have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it...
(http://www.dominionpaper.ca/files/dominion-img/Gamma%20squad%20goons.jpg)
-
It quite frequently works.
-
The answers to many of the questions posted and answered here are not actually known. Economists spend their careers studying this stuff and often have conflicting opinions. While the broad brush arguments are pretty clear, most only apply in detail in special cases.
One of the most classic examples is the Laffer curve. Everyone agrees that government revenue is zero at zero tax rate. Most agree that at 100% tax rate the revenue is also zero, or near zero since production can't continue if everything is taken each year (no seed corn in the oldest example). And experience tells us that revenues are larger at interim tax rates. But there is little agreement on whether the curve joining those endpoints is time independent, continuous, differentiable, single valued or anything else. So any statement about adjustments in tax rate based on this concept is a guess or worse.
-
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
Assuming the government is a democratic one it is the people themselves putting trust into the money.
-
Price controls, rationing and other central planning measures get a bad name because it's usually communists which use these tools and they screw everything up. They have been used by less incompetent governments too and despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of economists that they did more harm than good, it doesn't necessarily crash the economy. You don't need trust to place value in money (or rationing coupons) in those cases, just common sense.
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
Realistically these tools are as much as a threat as they are an insurance. There's a rich history of countries endlessly printing money, or manipulating things otherwise, causing economic unrest or full on collapse.
-
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
Assuming the government is a democratic one it is the people themselves putting trust into the money.
Democracy? Nice idea. Here in the US we have an oligarchy, not a democracy. (http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4).
-
(https://www.eevblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cardano.png)
Remind me -- what's the point of a QR code printed on a screen? :P
Seems like a link or something might do?
For those people who foolishly use crypto currency app on their phones.
Which is the majority it seems.
They will be the ones to lose their money first when the great crypto hack comes...
-
deterministic paper wallets for the win
-
Dave, how do you store your crypto? Do you use a software/hardware wallet? Paper? At the moment I've got mine sitting on the exchange, but will probably pull it out into a more secure form. I'm leaning towards a software wallet on an off-line machine with a paper back up.
-
Dave, how do you store your crypto? Do you use a software/hardware wallet? Paper? At the moment I've got mine sitting on the exchange, but will probably pull it out into a more secure form. I'm leaning towards a software wallet on an off-line machine with a paper back up.
Combination of all three.
Hardware wallets unfortunately don't support all the altcoins.
I have a new Ledger Nano S sitting on my desk, been meaning to do a reaview/teardown of that, and the new model Trezor on order.
-
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
Assuming the government is a democratic one it is the people themselves putting trust into the money.
Democracy? Nice idea. Here in the US we have an oligarchy, not a democracy. (http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4).
That is your problem and appearantly most people are satisfied with the US government the way it is skewed otherwise it would have been overthrown a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution)
-
(https://www.eevblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cardano.png)
Remind me -- what's the point of a QR code printed on a screen? :P
Seems like a link or something might do?
For those people who foolishly use crypto currency app on their phones.
Which is the majority it seems.
They will be the ones to lose their money first when the great crypto hack comes...
I don't see a problem about using a phone wallet. Just don't store big amounts in it - treat it like a normal wallet.
Anything that is attached to a network can be hacked of course, but it would be a rather impressive thing to hack them all at once :)
-
Anything that is attached to a network can be hacked of course, but it would be a rather impressive thing to hack them all at once :)
That's the whole idea. Spyware gets installed on your phone (because they are inherently unsecure) and then "they" collect this information (including paper wallet keys you foolishly set up on your phone) and then one day there is going to be a great hack that nabs them all at once.
-
It is a bit of a PITA to set up a secure offline environment (make sure that OS ISO meets it's checksum) but if you don't want daddy bank holding your hand it is just one of those things you have to do.
-
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
Assuming the government is a democratic one it is the people themselves putting trust into the money.
Democracy? Nice idea. Here in the US we have an oligarchy, not a democracy. (http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4).
Thanks, that's true. And, that's true for the EU too. Also that means, that there are a few, who, unlike much more others, benefit from this situation. And that has nothing to do with communism [lol] in these days, rather with escalating capitalism.
-
Anything that is attached to a network can be hacked of course, but it would be a rather impressive thing to hack them all at once :)
That's the whole idea. Spyware gets installed on your phone (because they are inherently unsecure) and then "they" collect this information (including paper wallet keys you foolishly set up on your phone) and then one day there is going to be a great hack that nabs them all at once.
Fair point, that is possible. But I think it is illogical. Firstly, why would they wait? They have the keys already if the phone is already hacked. If they wait then the higher the chance the spyware will be discovered and removed.
Also there is the problem of shifting the funds after the hack, that would be even harder given the alt-currency is now worthless. A huge hack like that would bring huge publicity and attention from law enforcement. Covering tracks for such a large event would be very difficult.
Logically, the crims would take the money straight away in smaller amounts as they can get it. Therefore we would hear about it.
-
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
Assuming the government is a democratic one it is the people themselves putting trust into the money.
Democracy? Nice idea. Here in the US we have an oligarchy, not a democracy. (http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4).
That is your problem and appearantly most people are satisfied with the US government the way it is skewed otherwise it would have been overthrown a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution)
No - most Americans are not satisfied with US governance. But being dissatisfied is not the same as being willing to rise up and revolt. For most, the current bread and circuses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses) keep them content enough that expression of their dissatisfaction is limited to quiet grumblings or subdued with alcohol or opiates...
-
Little OT, but some new news today (translated from german 'telepolis.de'):
The FED further raises the base interest rate, while in Europe there is no normalization of monetary policy and "the largest bond bubble in human history is puffing up"
That says it all ...
(edit: translate correction)
-
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
Assuming the government is a democratic one it is the people themselves putting trust into the money.
If your country was a democracy the poor would get together and vote to remove the assets of the rich. There are usually many more times the number of poor people than rich people, so the rich would always be out voted.
Note that pure, direct, open democracy is not implemented in pretty much any country because it's dangerous. The people do not know how to run a country, they don't understand international politics or economics.
Take Brexit for example. A case were open democracy back fired really badly and allowed a win for xenophobes, racists and bigots without a single clue what exactly it meant or what the plan was... there wasn't a plan, nobody expected it to go "YES".
Another example which thankfully hasn't happened, but could you imagine the response to:
"Would you like all corporations in the UK to pay full tax without any deals, rebates or concessions?"
I can guarantee the mass populace would vote "YES" in a huge land slide. In a years time all big business would leave the country to seek a better tax environment elsewhere . Trashing the economy overnight.
This is why the usual form of democracy is "representative democracy" where we vote for people we feel will represent our interests. Though this is failing today with the "Hello Magazine" effect of pop culture. Not only do people not understand how to run a country, they don't even understand anymore than their politicians do need to know. So they vote for charismatic imbeciles who talk the talk but haven't a clue what they are doing. Thankfully it's usually the civil servants actually running the country, but corruption can lie there too.
-
Legal tender is mostly trust based (though as I said, you HAVE to pay your taxes ... trust doesn't enter into it) for as long as the government has trust in it as well, but they have the tools and the necessity to put something more fundamental underpinning it in an emergency. That necessity doesn't exist for bitcoin.
Assuming the government is a democratic one it is the people themselves putting trust into the money.
If your country was a democracy the poor would get together and vote to remove the assets of the rich. There are usually many more times the number of poor people than rich people, so the rich would always be out voted.
Note that pure, direct, open democracy is not implemented in pretty much any country because it's dangerous. The people do not know how to run a country, they don't understand international politics or economics.
Take Brexit for example. A case were open democracy back fired really badly and allowed a win for xenophobes, racists and bigots without a single clue what exactly it meant or what the plan was... there wasn't a plan, nobody expected it to go "YES".
The new parliament in the NL is getting rid of polls on specific topics because it will always be abused to vote against the government and not for or against the topic. It happened in the NL too about whether Ukraine should get some kind of EU partner status. That didn't do much harm but the UK got burned badly with the brexit poll.
This is why the usual form of democracy is "representative democracy" where we vote for people we feel will represent our interests. Though this is failing today with the "Hello Magazine" effect of pop culture. Not only do people not understand how to run a country, they don't even understand anymore than their politicians do need to know.
In the NL laws get passed in two stages. First the directly choosen parliament (2nd chamber) votes on it and then the first chamber consisting of senior politicians votes on it. The first chamber however can't make changes to the laws. This means the members of 2nd chamber really need to do their homework before putting a law together.
-
That is your problem and appearantly most people are satisfied with the US government the way it is skewed otherwise it would have been overthrown a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution)
Are they happy with the way things are, or are they happy with the way they think things are? There's often a large difference between what people perceive and how things are.
A fun example would be the perceived spendings on NASA, and the actual spendings. People consistently vastly overestimate how much money is spent on NASA and therefore have a different perception of budget cuts or increased spending. We're not even talking about wilful manipulation yet.
-
Note that pure, direct, open democracy is not implemented in pretty much any country because it's dangerous. The people do not know how to run a country, they don't understand international politics or economics.
Take Brexit for example. A case were open democracy back fired really badly and allowed a win for xenophobes, racists and bigots without a single clue what exactly it meant or what the plan was... there wasn't a plan, nobody expected it to go "YES".
The plan, of course, is to be as the UK was before 1970, and as such awful countries as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are now, managing their own immigration and their own trading environment.
Wait ... but they're not awful! They are universally regarded as among the best places in the world to live, well above both the USA and UK on virtually every measure except raw income. Look at any independently compiled list of the most free, best health, longest life, best standard of living etc etc and you'll find those countries near the top, along with the same usual suspects of the Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland. That's going to be your top ten, right there, in most cases.
Another example which thankfully hasn't happened, but could you imagine the response to:
"Would you like all corporations in the UK to pay full tax without any deals, rebates or concessions?"
I can guarantee the mass populace would vote "YES" in a huge land slide. In a years time all big business would leave the country to seek a better tax environment elsewhere . Trashing the economy overnight.
That is another case where this would in fact be a GOOD THING, provided only that the official nominal tax rate was lowered so as to collect the same amount of tax.
That would benefit the economy hugely, and cause companies to flock to the UK.
The only people it would hurt would be accountants and lawyers.
I do agree that pure representative democracy would be a bad thing. But you picked terrible examples to illustrate it!
-
The plan, of course, is to be as the UK was before 1970, and as such awful countries as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are now, managing their own immigration and their own trading environment.
Wait ... but they're not awful! They are universally regarded as among the best places in the world to live, well above both the USA and UK on virtually every measure except raw income. Look at any independently compiled list of the most free, best health, longest life, best standard of living etc etc and you'll find those countries near the top, along with the same usual suspects of the Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland. That's going to be your top ten, right there, in most cases.
There is no plan, they didn't even bother to calculate what the Brexit would do to the economical situation of the UK until the decision was already made. It was populist politics for the sake of it, based on half truths and flat out lies and was never intended to actually be executed. The fact that almost all the politicians who endeavoured for a Brexit bailed ship within the first two weeks says it all. They knew exactly what was coming and wanted nothing to do with it.
You do realize that Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands and Austria are in part as successful as they are thanks to the EU framework the UK is aspiring to leave behind now, right? Moreover, the UK actually has all sort of exceptions that benefit them within the EU, more than the other countries, but still it was not enough. Now all the perks will be a thing of the past. Considering close to half of the trading done is with other EU states, that might sting a bit.
-
The FED further raises the base interest rate, while in Europe there is no normalization of monetary policy and "the largest bond bubble in human history is puffing up"
That says it all ...
There is no bubble, central banks have an infinite capacity to buy government debt and the amount of government debt they hold is pretty much irrelevant. Something like current account balance and external debt is far more fundamental in kicking off hyperinflation than government debt held by the central bank.
Look at Japan, chicken littles have been wrong about the relevance of internal government debt for literal decades.
PS. the Euro is fundamentally unstable though, but not because of a bubble in debt.
-
If your country was a democracy the poor would get together and vote to remove the assets of the rich.
In a high trust monocultural society such as Japan this is less of an issue. There is still the concept of shame of government dependence, there is a level of trust that the rich will keep the differences civilized and have the best interests for the nation at heart.
It's only when morality, trust and shame get ground to dust that this becomes truly an issue. Multiculturalism has killed the spectre of fascism, but we have enough democracy to vote ourselves communist if we really want to. If the bread and circuses decrease a little too quick because of another economic crisis we might do so, propaganda can only control the population if they boil the frog slowly enough.
-
propaganda can only control the population if they boil the frog slowly enough.
... and that right there is a t-shirt quote. But... it's happening. The dumbing down of society the shunning of the intelligent, the proliferation of giving tin-foil-hat opinion equal merit to empirical evidence and shunning the latter proving the former stupid. "They are entitled to their opinion."
Well I'm entitled to say their opinion is bollox the pop culture society is turning into a mass of dribbling fools. Just continuing to breed, obey and consume so the graphs keep rising and bubble/bust repeats to keep the money owners happy.
You can't boil frog even slowly if it's a critical thinking educated frog and aware of where it is.
-
You do realize that Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands and Austria are in part as successful as they are thanks to the EU framework the UK is aspiring to leave behind now, right?
Maybe. Or maybe the EU hobbles them.
It is indisputable that Australia, Canada, New Zealand are not helped in any way by the EU, and indeed suffered greatly when the UK joined it.
-
Maybe. Or maybe the EU hobbles them.
It is indisputable that Australia, Canada, New Zealand are not helped in any way by the EU, and indeed suffered greatly when the UK joined it.
You can argue back and forth all day long, but the fact remains that the EU is one of the safest and economically most prosperous areas of the world. There's strength in numbers and none of these countries individually would have a voice on the global political stage.
Pointing to Australia, Canada or New Zealand doesn't make much sense. None of those countries is part that does nearly 50% of its trading with the rest of the EU. I'm not sure why these country would have suffered greatly when the UK joined to EU, but it's not very relevant to the discussion either way. It's silly to think that further isolating the UK from it's neighbours is going to help its economic problems. However, it is obvious that it's beneficial for politicians to point fingers outside of the UK, rather than facing their own internal problems. It's always easier to blame another than it is to face your own shortcomings.
-
Mr.Scram why are you ashamed of your country flag?
-
Mr.Scram why are you ashamed of your country flag?
I'm not.
-
The FED further raises the base interest rate, while in Europe there is no normalization of monetary policy and "the largest bond bubble in human history is puffing up"
That says it all ...
There is no bubble, central banks have an infinite capacity to buy government debt and the amount of government debt they hold is pretty much irrelevant. Something like current account balance and external debt is far more fundamental in kicking off hyperinflation than government debt held by the central bank.
Look at Japan, chicken littles have been wrong about the relevance of internal government debt for literal decades.
PS. the Euro is fundamentally unstable though, but not because of a bubble in debt.
Bonds are interest-bearing securities. You do not have to be a genius to find that relatively low interest rates in a low-interest environment encourage risk-taking (zero bound). And that pushes the bubbles. What do you think, why the FED (and EZB) is very interested in raising the base rate in order to get away from the low interest rate policy? Apart from that the necessary central bank money flood reduces purchasing power, and who then has to pay that bill. :-//
-
In a high trust monocultural society such as Japan this is less of an issue. There is still the concept of shame of government dependence, there is a level of trust that the rich will keep the differences civilized and have the best interests for the nation at heart.
It's only when morality, trust and shame get ground to dust that this becomes truly an issue. Multiculturalism has killed the spectre of fascism, but we have enough democracy to vote ourselves communist if we really want to. If the bread and circuses decrease a little too quick because of another economic crisis we might do so, propaganda can only control the population if they boil the frog slowly enough.
...cough...
Believe me, there is only one law out there, and that means "PROFIT"
;)
-
Low growth rates and an oversized financial industry accustomed to bail outs encourage risk taking, the Fed is powerless to change that.
Lets say the target rate was 5% and US government went into more debt because of higher financing cost, with the Fed just happily buying whatever the private market wouldn't because they deemed the debt "unsustainable". This would drive inflation and still make the financial industry chase higher risk investments to beat inflation.
-
There is no bubble...
http://money.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one-visualization-2017/ (http://money.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one-visualization-2017/)
-
There is no magical point of internal government debt where it becomes unsustainable. Any interest government pays to it's own central bank just comes right back, it doesn't have any cost for government. It's just numbers in a computer, we're not running out of numbers any time soon.
-
There is no magical point of internal government debt where it becomes unsustainable. Any interest government pays to it's own central bank just comes right back, it doesn't have any cost for government. It's just numbers in a computer, we're not running out of numbers any time soon.
The central bank isn't always part of the government.
-
The Fed is a penstroke away from nationalization and only takes a tiny commission in the big scheme of things. Pretty much all interest the government pays the Fed just flows back to government, they are not allowed to just pocket all profits.
Only the ECB is independent of national governments in a meaningful way, but that's not really a central bank. The Euro is a weird incompetently put together monstrosity.
-
There is no magical point of internal government debt where it becomes unsustainable. Any interest government pays to it's own central bank just comes right back, it doesn't have any cost for government. It's just numbers in a computer, we're not running out of numbers any time soon.
Government debt is owed to bond holders. Only a relatively small percentage of US debt is owned by the Fed. The US central bank (AKA the Fed) is a private organization owned by banks (but with a facade of government oversight). It is extremely naive to think that could be easily changed.
History has shown that once government debt exceeds 100%of GDP, things do not end well ( see Reinhart and Rogoff’s This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly )
It’s only the US dollar’s privileged position as the world’s reserve currency that allows the US to sustain such large debt with little apparent consequence. This is not a guaranteed permanent arrangement.
-
The US and the dollar are a bit special, but if the appetite for debt at insignificant interest rates disappears the Fed can take over without catastrophic things happening. The US has a massive trade deficit, but it has an even more massive internal economy ... even if forced into trade balance it can manage just fine.
Show me a country in history with a relatively healthy current account deficit which just used its government debt in its own fiat currency as roundabout taxation which collapsed its economy because of it ... you can't, because that has not happened in the 8 centuries before. History has no parallel for the stuff happening now. Not with the Euro, not with domestic fiat based government debt, not with international trade agreements. We're unhinged from history.
New Zealand's structural current account deficit in combination with international foreign investment agreements is more of an economic danger than Japan's debt.
PS. as for nationalizing the Fed being difficult, the US government already confiscated all their gold with the stroke of a pen. The Fed whined a whole lot about it, didn't help them. They aren't constitutionally protected ... even the supreme court won't help them, unless it's being corrupt as hell.
-
I don't understand why Trump is in the public talking about how wrong China is, by having USA in this great debt.. to China, as it that was somehow unfair, I mean USA would be free to create debt with everybody else anyway. I am also assuming that this talk of there being an unimaginably large debt to foreign countries like China, is all state debt and not consumer debt (but maybe I am wrong thinking this). Being a European my general interest in such things is very limited, as I have better things to do than keeping track of some other country's debt.
-
Debt in your own fiat for a sovereign nation is nothing more than paper, the problem with mercantilism for the US is the loss of industrial base and autarky. The US doesn't really need the world to maintain a high standard of living. So if there is value in autarky (and there is, though it's not PC to say so) the US should be protective of its internal industry.
-
Don't worry, everything will be fine... |O
https://youtu.be/8U5ty2DcyxY (https://youtu.be/8U5ty2DcyxY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvZSRcEWykA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvZSRcEWykA)
-
I have a question.
Imagine I would have bought 1000 Euro worth of bitcoin a few years ago and they at now worth 170.000 Euro.
If I would sell them, how would I justify to the bank aka taxes where this money comes from? How would I be taxed?
Imagine I would buy a house and pay with those bitcoin. How would I justify where the money has come from, I my salary is not enough to buy a house?
How does that work? How can I prove it was an "investment" in bitcoin?
Regards,
Vitor
-
Vitor
capital gains, or whatever they call it in your jurisdiction
But perhaps the better question is why is it any business of the bank, or the State for that matter, where your resources have come from? Why should you have to "justify" the fact that you invested well?
-
Hi,
I understand that, but how do I actually prove the providence of this captial gains, if all has been done online through non accredited entities?
Sorry, if this is a dumb question . I never bought or sold bitcoin.
If I make captial gains through shares, the bank takes care of everything.
If I buy and sell foreign money and make a profit, I have at least bank documents stating what I bought and sold.
How does it work with bitcoin?
And is it taxed like shares or other captital gains like interest rates (i.e. much less than profit from labour)?
EDIT (to reflect update of post above this one): because everyone should pay taxes of any income?
Regards,
Vitor
-
It largely depends on the local tax rules. It took a while for tax agencies to catch on, but most have specific rules how they view and deal with Bitcoin.
To answer your question, you may have to prove you invested in the past in Bitcoin. They can then calculate the expected gains based on how the market did. If there's a large discrepancy, you might be looked at long and hard to make sure it's not whitewashing or criminally gained money. In most cases, you will have to prove the money is legit. It's one of the cases where the burden of proof is on you.
-
The reason I ask:
I live in Portugal and due to the recent financial crises where Portugal had to receive EU "aid" from TROIKA, citizens are heavily scrutinized.
Everything (almost everything) you purchase will (should) be invoiced with your tax number. This is to prevent a parallel economy where resellers and service providers don't declare a significant amount of their the transactions. In order to erradicate this practice, everyone should be asking for a receipt with the fiscal number. To endorse this and educate the people, the finance department has some sort of lottery, where a randomly selected invoice will give the fiscal number holder a price (previously a car, now 50.000 Euro).
As a consequence, if you spend more money than you declare on your tax form, you will certainly be investigated. Any money that lands on your bank account over 500 Euro has to be justified. There is so much control over your money, it is actually scary! If you want for instance give a friend 1000 Euro, you need to declare this and pay taxes (I am not arguing how easy it is to circumvent this)! Also, it is forbidden to pay any transaction over 500 Euro (I think it is 500 Euro - the limit may be 1000 or 2000 Euro) in cash!
Your house, cars, etc. - everything is known to the finance department and if you own more than you can justify, you are in deep problems (unless you belong to the political class).
So this is why I asked, how people dealing with bitcoin have been handling the enormous increase in value. Of course you could just keep the bitcoin. You could spend it (not that easy, as only few items or services can be paid directly in bitcoin). So how do you take advantage of the value that bitcoin produced?
While this is not clear to me, I simply won't risk anything with bitcoin. And right now it seems pretty shady to me (from the viewpoint of the finance department).
Regards,
Vitor
-
But perhaps the better question is why is it any business of the bank, or the State for that matter, where your resources have come from?
Because large amounts of money (or expensive assets) suddenly turning up in the hands of somebody is often indicative of some criminal activity.
The state, acting on behalf of the people in ensuring that criminal activity is detected does have a reasonable justification for asking about the source of large amounts of funds that suddenly turn up.
Of course, this does assume that the state is honest and sincere, unlike those cases in places like Texas with police departments conducting civil forfeiture and that sort of rubbish.
-
I would keep a paper record of the transactions and the wallet addresses. And a record of the transfer of your real money in, and the transfer of real money back out into your bank account.
I don't have any direct knowledge, but I expect the more information you can supply the better.
Since Bitcoin is a public ledger they can then go and look up your transaction and prove you are telling the truth.
Whether they have the technical chops to do this without a huge drama is another matter of course...
-
The reason I ask:
I live in Portugal and due to the recent financial crises where Portugal had to receive EU "aid" from TROIKA, citizens are heavily scrutinized.
Everything (almost everything) you purchase will (should) be invoiced with your tax number. This is to prevent a parallel economy where resellers and service providers don't declare a significant amount of their the transactions. In order to erradicate this practice, everyone should be asking for a receipt with the fiscal number. To endorse this and educate the people, the finance department has some sort of lottery, where a randomly selected invoice will give the fiscal number holder a price (previously a car, now 50.000 Euro).
As a consequence, if you spend more money than you declare on your tax form, you will certainly be investigated. Any money that lands on your bank account over 500 Euro has to be justified. There is so much control over your money, it is actually scary! If you want for instance give a friend 1000 Euro, you need to declare this and pay taxes (I am not arguing how easy it is to circumvent this)! Also, it is forbidden to pay any transaction over 500 Euro (I think it is 500 Euro - the limit may be 1000 or 2000 Euro) in cash!
Your house, cars, etc. - everything is known to the finance department and if you own more than you can justify, you are in deep problems (unless you belong to the political class).
So this is why I asked, how people dealing with bitcoin have been handling the enormous increase in value. Of course you could just keep the bitcoin. You could spend it (not that easy, as only few items or services can be paid directly in bitcoin). So how do you take advantage of the value that bitcoin produced?
While this is not clear to me, I simply won't risk anything with bitcoin. And right now it seems pretty shady to me (from the viewpoint of the finance department).
Regards,
Vitor
The solution is easy. Just keep proper records and declare the correct amounts.
-
But perhaps the better question is why is it any business of the bank, or the State for that matter, where your resources have come from?
Because it is a criminal offense for the banks to support terrorism, money laundring, tax evasion and criminal activities in general. Without these measures it would be easy for (for example) North Korea to get their nuclear weapons & missiles program funded, for IS to organise terrorist attacks on foreign soil, etc, etc, etc. Do you want to live in such a world?
-
Another major factor, which might be practically a bigger one, is that the state wants a cut. If you don't properly declare your assets and income, they can't take their cut.
-
And, please, this cut and control is about the little man's money. The big ones in general have other possibilities that means company investments, almost tax-and control free, the sale of companies to foreign investors, and the particular "lax" behavior of the authorities against large parts of the real estate market, e.g. in germany, which is not only known for insiders for money laundering.
-
I'd love to hear from those who have had a more experience than I do with Crypto, what lessons have you learnt so far?
1) Buy and HOLD.
2) Don't panic and sell on the dips, just use it as an opportunity to buy more.
The problem with that is that you never know when it is going to peak. I have waited for 4 years to sell the cryptocurrency I mined.
-
The problem with that is that you never know when it is going to peak. I have waited for 4 years to sell the cryptocurrency I mined.
That's the case with any speculative investment, it's nothing other than gambling, which is fine as long as one understands what they're getting into. The value is rising based on speculation, no real value being put into the system. For you to make money requires others to lose money, somebody has to be left holding the bag. The money *has* to come from somewhere.
-
Of course now that it's hit some highs - I figured I could use the $300+ dollars that ONE Litecoin I have is worth. Actually, i ended up with a bit over 1 LTC when I also converted all the Dogecoins I mined into LTC. However, one big giant :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: It's been 4 years since I did anything with mining and - I forget my LTC wallet passphrase! :palm: :palm: :palm: So far guessing has not worked - and I have a limited set with slight variations that I use everywhere, too.
-
That's the case with any speculative investment, it's nothing other than gambling, which is fine as long as one understands what they're getting into. The value is rising based on speculation, no real value being put into the system. For you to make money requires others to lose money, somebody has to be left holding the bag. The money *has* to come from somewhere.
This is only true in a system where no money ever gets added, but it does. In theory, Bitcoin could forever increase in value, leaving each holder of a specific Bitcoin richer than he was before.
-
Nothing can keep rising forever, a system that relies on people continuing to pour money into it to keep it from collapsing is a house of cards similar to a Ponzi scheme. It's not sustainable, eventually an adjustment will occur.
-
Nothing can keep rising forever, a system that relies on people continuing to pour money into it to keep it from collapsing is a house of cards similar to a Ponzi scheme. It's not sustainable, eventually an adjustment will occur.
That depends on the rate of growth. There are plenty of examples to be found of things that end up basically rising indefinitely, save a few short term dips and bumps.
-
I have yet to find an example of something that skyrocketed the way Bitcoin and other crypto currency has and didn't fall flat on it's face after a while. Every one of those bubbles people said at the time this one is different.
-
I have yet to find an example of something that skyrocketed the way Bitcoin and other crypto currency has and didn't fall flat on it's face after a while. Every one of those bubbles people said at the time this one is different.
I'm not saying anything about that. I'm just saying the ever recurring comment that your profits are another's losses is both stale and not necessarily true.
-
I have yet to find an example of something that skyrocketed the way Bitcoin and other crypto currency has and didn't fall flat on it's face after a while. Every one of those bubbles people said at the time this one is different.
The thing about Bitcoin is it's only "worth" as much as it is it because it's largely driven by hype and the "fear of missing out". Quite obviously, those that bought Bitcoin even just a few years ago have made significant gains (if they cash it out). There will (and have been) winners but there will be *a lot* of losers. Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed in so many ways not to mention it's slow, expensive to transact and has the problem of hard forks.
Now that other, technically superior cryptos are becoming more mainstream, you'll see Bitcoin undergo a huge price adjustment and others will rise. No one knows when but it's inevitable. There are many reasons why I'm staying the hell away from Bitcoin and the high risk of losing a lot is just one of them. When one of Bitcoin's founders pulls out (http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/bitcoin-as-good-as-useless-says-bitcoin-com-co-founder-20171218-p4yxty.html), you know there are problems and a crash is imminent, the moment that happens, there will be a decline across the board as people get scared off from crypto, but then there will be a recovery and those looking to re-invest in other coins will help push prices up.
Altcoins like DASH, Ethereum, Ripple and IOTA are safer and in many ways better alternatives.
-
When one of Bitcoin's founders pulls out,
Emil Oldenburg is not one of Bitcoin's founders. He co-founded the website Bitcoin.com which seems a site about everything Bitcoin.
-
Emil Oldenburg is not one of Bitcoin's founders.
Is it just me, or does "Emil Oldenburg" sound like a Bond Villian's name?
-
I have yet to find an example of something that skyrocketed the way Bitcoin and other crypto currency has and didn't fall flat on it's face after a while. Every one of those bubbles people said at the time this one is different.
I'm not saying anything about that. I'm just saying the ever recurring comment that your profits are another's losses is both stale and not necessarily true.
But if other people invest in it to keep the price rising, then the movement runs out of steam and it comes crashing down, the late investors lose their money and you gained from their losses. Your argument is similar to the over-unity claims that a system can generate more energy than is put in, it doesn't work.
-
I'm with Annie Machon and Julian Assange:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS-eWwwmcoo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS-eWwwmcoo)
[edit: exchange to better video]
-
I have little doubt that some form of crypto currency will stick around and find uses, but if it's useful as a currency then people aren't going to be making big gains investing in the currency. Somebody is going to have to find a way to create a crypto currency that has a relatively stable value backed by some real world commodity. A currency is something used to facilitate transactions by transferring value, for it to serve that purpose it can't have a volatile value in itself.
-
I have little doubt that some form of crypto currency will stick around and find uses, but if it's useful as a currency then people aren't going to be making big gains investing in the currency. Somebody is going to have to find a way to create a crypto currency that has a relatively stable value backed by some real world commodity. A currency is something used to facilitate transactions by transferring value, for it to serve that purpose it can't have a volatile value in itself.
Is the pricing instability due to a design flaw in Bitcoin, or a design flaw in the people buying bitcoin?
-
I have yet to find an example of something that skyrocketed the way Bitcoin and other crypto currency has and didn't fall flat on it's face after a while. Every one of those bubbles people said at the time this one is different.
I'm not saying anything about that. I'm just saying the ever recurring comment that your profits are another's losses is both stale and not necessarily true.
But if other people invest in it to keep the price rising, then the movement runs out of steam and it comes crashing down, the late investors lose their money and you gained from their losses. Your argument is similar to the over-unity claims that a system can generate more energy than is put in, it doesn't work.
Exactly right. Other investments such as stocks and bonds are claims on future cash flows (or goods or services). Not so with Bitcoin. It is only an IOU whose value is entirely dependent on what someone else is willing to pay for it (in some other currency) or trade for it (in real goods or services). It has no inherent value.
-
Is the pricing instability due to a design flaw in Bitcoin, or a design flaw in the people buying bitcoin?
Money is worthless without people trusting it, so people's behaviour is an inherent trait of any currency.
-
Is the pricing instability due to a design flaw in Bitcoin, or a design flaw in the people buying bitcoin?
Money is worthless without people trusting it, so people's behaviour is an inherent trait of any currency.
Perhaps true if it was a currency, but it doesn't look anything like one to me.
-
Exactly right. Other investments such as stocks and bonds are claims on future cash flows (or goods or services). Not so with Bitcoin. It is only an IOU whose value is entirely dependent on what someone else is willing to pay for it (in some other currency) or trade for it (in real goods or services). It has no inherent value.
It's a currency and all currencies are the same in this regard, at least since the gold standard has been abolished. A share is a part of something. A monetary unit is nothing but value, or the trust it has that value.
You could argue that Bitcoin are are better in this regard than regular dollars. Dollars get printed at will, while Bitcoins are inherently limited in nature and do represent an amount of labour being put in to generate one. This puts them somewhere in between conventional currency and stock, though it's much closer to currency.
-
Perhaps true if it was a currency, but it doesn't look anything like one to me.
It seems most people disagree. Why do you feel that way?
-
Exactly right. Other investments such as stocks and bonds are claims on future cash flows (or goods or services). Not so with Bitcoin. It is only an IOU whose value is entirely dependent on what someone else is willing to pay for it (in some other currency) or trade for it (in real goods or services). It has no inherent value.
It's a currency and all currencies are the same in this regard, at least since the gold standard has been abolished. A share is a part of something. A monetary unit is nothing but value, or the trust it has that value.
You could argue that Bitcoin are are better in this regard than regular dollars. Dollars get printed at will, while Bitcoins are inherently limited in nature and do represent an amount of labour being put in to generate one. This puts them somewhere in between conventional currency and stock, though it's much closer to currency.
It's true that Bitcoin has some common features of a Fiat Currency - but unlike Fiat - it has no backing of any government.
I'm all for getting away from Fiat currencies and Central Bank unlimited money printing - that will happen eventually and a cryptocurrency may be what replaces it . But it won't be Bitcoin IMHO. Bitcoin's problem is that it is too inefficient and too slow and unscalable to become a widespread form of payment and it has nothing backing it to be a safe store of wealth. Caveat Emptor.
-
Because it's extremely volatile, because people are investing in the "currency" itself, rather than using it as a currency to transfer existing value. You don't trade stuff for $10 bills hoping those $10 bills will skyrocket in value, you do it so you can use those $10 bills to buy something else. If people were using Bitcoin as a currency, the value wouldn't be shooting through the roof. They're investing in it hoping the value will keep going up so they can cash out to some more stable currency before it crashes.
-
Because it's extremely volatile, because people are investing in the "currency" itself, rather than using it as a currency to transfer existing value. You don't trade stuff for $10 bills hoping those $10 bills will skyrocket in value, you do it so you can use those $10 bills to buy something else. If people were using Bitcoin as a currency, the value wouldn't be shooting through the roof. They're investing in it hoping the value will keep going up so they can cash out to some more stable currency before it crashes.
People trade traditional currencies for the sake of trading it all the time? Just like they trade gold, which often doesn't even exist, just on paper. Even though gold has some intrinsic value, we'll have to concede that's not what people are after.
-
Perhaps true if it was a currency, but it doesn't look anything like one to me.
It seems most people disagree. Why do you feel that way?
Hah, because I think differently to most people my friend :)
I am looking at it from a different perspective. You seem to be saying 'the textbook calls it a currency'. I am saying 'I can't buy a coffee with it'.
Bitcoin is not a practical currency. It wanted to be a currency, but currently is failing badly. Perhaps it can be fixed?
Once something turns bubbly then it could be tulips, currency, .com shares. It really makes no difference as none have any inherent value worth a damn at the end of the day. The inherent value argument does not apply once the 'thing' becomes a bubble.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of bitcoin transactions are trading on the price rising and very few transactions are actually using it as a currency. So it isn't actually used in real life as a currency very much.
Interestingly the bitcoin powers that be could 'print' more bitcoin if they chose to, by altering the difficulty factor to target some Bitcoin/USD rate instead of to an arbitrary block production target.
-
Hah, because I think differently to most people my friend :)
I am looking at it from a different perspective. You seem to be saying 'the textbook calls it a currency'. I am saying 'I can't buy a coffee with it'.
Bitcoin is not a practical currency. It wanted to be a currency, but currently is failing badly. Perhaps it can be fixed?
Once something turns bubbly then it could be tulips, currency, .com shares. It really makes no difference as none have any inherent value worth a damn at the end of the day. The inherent value argument does not apply once the 'thing' becomes a bubble.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of bitcoin transactions are trading on the price rising and very few transactions are actually using it as a currency. So it isn't actually used in real life as a currency very much.
Interestingly the bitcoin powers that be could 'print' more bitcoin if they chose to, by altering the difficulty factor to target some Bitcoin/USD rate instead of to an arbitrary block production target.
I can't exactly buy a coffee with some Albanian lek or Chilean pesos either. I'm fairly sure I could buy a lot more things relevant to me with some Bitcoin than said currencies. None of the other currencies have any inherent value. That's the whole point of them. It's a token value, so you can exchange services and good for value and vice versa.
I'm not arguing it's not a bubble. It may very likely be. But that's not really related to the rest. Tulips and IT companies do have an intrinsic value, yet became part of a bubble too. A bubble can happen anywhere.
-
I have yet to find an example of something that skyrocketed the way Bitcoin and other crypto currency has and didn't fall flat on it's face after a while. Every one of those bubbles people said at the time this one is different.
I'm not saying anything about that. I'm just saying the ever recurring comment that your profits are another's losses is both stale and not necessarily true.
But if other people invest in it to keep the price rising, then the movement runs out of steam and it comes crashing down, the late investors lose their money and you gained from their losses. Your argument is similar to the over-unity claims that a system can generate more energy than is put in, it doesn't work.
Exactly right. Other investments such as stocks and bonds are claims on future cash flows (or goods or services). Not so with Bitcoin. It is only an IOU whose value is entirely dependent on what someone else is willing to pay for it (in some other currency) or trade for it (in real goods or services). It has no inherent value.
That's true for any investment. Any non consument debtor is an investor. That's the prinzip of economic growth. Money too has no inherent value, until the moment when, covered by the state monopoly of power, it enters the economic cycle. Crytpo-Money is also in the economic cycle and regulates itself in the medium term by this. The question is rather whether it can assert itself without a state monopoly on power or if one don't even allow it to do that
-
Hello, I am new to cryptocurrency, so the question is:
If bitcoins/altcoins are not physically stored in my wallet on the computer in some file, why can't I pay with them when using another computer/smartphone etc.? So they are stored in blockchain, and if I know the password I can pay with them from anywhere else?
Thanks for the answer.
-
People trade traditional currencies for the sake of trading it all the time? Just like they trade gold, which often doesn't even exist, just on paper. Even though gold has some intrinsic value, we'll have to concede that's not what people are after.
Sure but the gains are peanuts, especially compared to the total transactions taking place, unless something is very, very wrong with one of those currencies. The gains occurring with Bitcoin are many orders of magnitude beyond what is reasonable as a currency, and they're occurring purely based on wild speculation. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Bitcoin transactions taking place are speculative investment in the "currency" itself rather than trade in goods or services. A massive correction is inevitable.
-
Hello, I am new to cryptocurrency, so the question is:
If bitcoins/altcoins are not physically stored in my wallet on the computer in some file, why can't I pay with them when using another computer/smartphone etc.? So they are stored in blockchain, and if I know the password I can pay with them from anywhere else?
Thanks for the answer.
Everyone in the world is looking at the same blockchain. If you use some bitcoin, it is an only one using in this stacked list. So, others see which amount on his account after synchronization results.
-
Hello, I am new to cryptocurrency, so the question is:
If bitcoins/altcoins are not physically stored in my wallet on the computer in some file, why can't I pay with them when using another computer/smartphone etc.? So they are stored in blockchain, and if I know the password I can pay with them from anywhere else?
Thanks for the answer.
Everyone in the world is looking at the same blockchain. If you use some bitcoin, it is an only one using in this stacked list. So, others see which amount on his account after synchronization results.
Ok, but with using my account and using my password I can only pay for the goods. The point is here, It could work like e-mail. You can use it anywhere, but only you know the password.
-
Sure but the gains are peanuts, especially compared to the total transactions taking place, unless something is very, very wrong with one of those currencies. The gains occurring with Bitcoin are many orders of magnitude beyond what is reasonable as a currency, and they're occurring purely based on wild speculation. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Bitcoin transactions taking place are speculative investment in the "currency" itself rather than trade in goods or services. A massive correction is inevitable.
That's how the financial markets work. Some products, with currency being a product, are more stable, and some are less stable. Sometimes even the biggest and most stable currencies correct themselves, like how the British pound recently lost a significant amount of value for such a stable currency. There's a lot of money to be made or lost with that. Typically, less stable products yields a bigger rewards, but also mean a bigger risk of losing your shirt. There's a wide array of products to invest in and ways to invest in them and each has it's own pros and cons. Some are super risky and others are a mostly safe bet with a small but consistent rewards.
If you take some precautions so that you don't lose it all when a correction comes, it can be interesting to benefit from the upwards motion to some.
-
Hah, because I think differently to most people my friend :)
I am looking at it from a different perspective. You seem to be saying 'the textbook calls it a currency'. I am saying 'I can't buy a coffee with it'.
Bitcoin is not a practical currency. It wanted to be a currency, but currently is failing badly. Perhaps it can be fixed?
Once something turns bubbly then it could be tulips, currency, .com shares. It really makes no difference as none have any inherent value worth a damn at the end of the day. The inherent value argument does not apply once the 'thing' becomes a bubble.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of bitcoin transactions are trading on the price rising and very few transactions are actually using it as a currency. So it isn't actually used in real life as a currency very much.
Interestingly the bitcoin powers that be could 'print' more bitcoin if they chose to, by altering the difficulty factor to target some Bitcoin/USD rate instead of to an arbitrary block production target.
I can't exactly buy a coffee with some Albanian lek or Chilean pesos either. I'm fairly sure I could buy a lot more things relevant to me with some Bitcoin than said currencies. None of the other currencies have any inherent value. That's the whole point of them. It's a token value, so you can exchange services and good for value and vice versa.
Of course, and I expected you would say that :) You must consider the 'scope' of the currency under discussion of course. Bitcoin has a global scope which makes it a bit different.
The point is that to buy a $4 coffee with bitcoin would take some minutes, and would cost $20 or more in fees. There is a trade-off between the fee's you pay and the time it takes. This applies to small amounts to receive too - so if you pay someone $4 for a coffee right now it will cost them $24 to spend that money. The fees are changing all of the time so you could leave home able to buy something but when you get to the shop the fee's have gone up. That is pretty impractical IMHO.
I haven't done a full fee transaction in Bitcoin so I don't know what it the fastest time it can go through. Perhaps it can be fast enough to be useful, but it would cost me $20 USD or more to find out. It does become more practical as the amount of the transaction goes up, as long as that doesn't mean you are not consolidating small amounts into a larger amount.
And yes of course I agree that bitcoin has no inherent value. My point is simply that even if it did have inherent value it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference in the current bubbly situation. The theoretical inherent value of the tulips and the .com shares did not change anything. I think we are both saying the same thing here.
-
Hello, I am new to cryptocurrency, so the question is:
If bitcoins/altcoins are not physically stored in my wallet on the computer in some file, why can't I pay with them when using another computer/smartphone etc.? So they are stored in blockchain, and if I know the password I can pay with them from anywhere else?
Thanks for the answer.
Everyone in the world is looking at the same blockchain. If you use some bitcoin, it is an only one using in this stacked list. So, others see which amount on his account after synchronization results.
Ok, but with using my account and using my password I can only pay for the goods. The point is here, It could work like e-mail. You can use it anywhere, but only you know the password.
Yes I think you can use any computer, as long as you know your passphrase. You would need to restore your wallet using the passphrase on the other computer.
Bitcoin is clever enough to work out that you have already spent that money so you won't get away with spending it twice.
-
A massive correction is inevitable.
Yes. An unnatural destruktive regulation through speculators or/and gouverments, or natural constructive by itself. As simple as that. ;)
-
Of course, and I expected you would say that :) You must consider the 'scope' of the currency under discussion of course. Bitcoin has a global scope which makes it a bit different.
The point is that to buy a $4 coffee with bitcoin would take some minutes, and would cost $20 or more in fees. There is a trade-off between the fee's you pay and the time it takes. This applies to small amounts to receive too - so if you pay someone $4 for a coffee right now it will cost them $24 to spend that money. The fees are changing all of the time so you could leave home able to buy something but when you get to the shop the fee's have gone up. That is pretty impractical IMHO.
I haven't done a full fee transaction in Bitcoin so I don't know what it the fastest time it can go through. Perhaps it can be fast enough to be useful, but it would cost me $20 USD or more to find out. It does become more practical as the amount of the transaction goes up, as long as that doesn't mean you are not consolidating small amounts into a larger amount.
And yes of course I agree that bitcoin has no inherent value. My point is simply that even if it did have inherent value it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference in the current bubbly situation. The theoretical inherent value of the tulips and the .com shares did not change anything. I think we are both saying the same thing here.
Did you actually check whether you can buy a coffee with Bitcoin? It seems you can buy coffee at Starbucks with Bitcoin at a nominal fee. That's pretty close to regular currency in my book and nowhere near the impractical situation you mention here. Until not long ago Steam also accepted Bitcoin for buying games. That's more convenient and less costly than, say, a person to person wire transfer in the US.
I get that people are wary, and probably rightfully so, but it's not as different as people purport it to be. It's a lot like a currency from a maybe not so stable nation. There's a lot to gain and a lot to lose.
-
That's how the financial markets work. Some products, with currency being a product, are more stable, and some are less stable. Sometimes even the biggest and most stable currencies correct themselves, like how the British pound recently lost a significant amount of value for such a stable currency. There's a lot of money to be made or lost with that. Typically, less stable products yields a bigger rewards, but also mean a bigger risk of losing your shirt. There's a wide array of products to invest in and ways to invest in them and each has it's own pros and cons. Some are super risky and others are a mostly safe bet with a small but consistent rewards.
If you take some precautions so that you don't lose it all when a correction comes, it can be interesting to benefit from the upwards motion to some.
The examples you cite are nowhere near the same magnitude. If a currency like the US dollar or UK pound gained or lost 3-4 orders of magnitude over a period of just a few years the effect would be catastrophic.
Yes it can be interesting to benefit from the upward motion, another term for that is "day trading", ie "gambling", you can absolutely benefit, and you can lose everything just as quickly as you can gain. This is not a stable long term investment, it is far to one end of the risk vs reward spectrum.
Whatever the case I predict a massive crash as the bubble pops within a year from now, virtually certain within 2 years. It will be interesting to see what people say at that point. Pretty much everyone advocating now is someone who has already bought into Bitcoin, thus it is in their interest to pump the value up higher by advocating others buy in.
-
The examples you cite are nowhere near the same magnitude. If a currency like the US dollar or UK pound gained or lost 3-4 orders of magnitude over a period of just a few years the effect would be catastrophic.
Yes it can be interesting to benefit from the upward motion, another term for that is "day trading", ie "gambling", you can absolutely benefit, and you can lose everything just as quickly as you can gain. This is not a stable long term investment, it is far to one end of the risk vs reward spectrum.
Whatever the case I predict a massive crash as the bubble pops within a year from now, virtually certain within 2 years. It will be interesting to see what people say at that point. Pretty much everyone advocating now is someone who has already bought into Bitcoin, thus it is in their interest to pump the value up higher by advocating others buy in.
What do you expect? Those are centuries old currencies, which is exactly the point I made in my previous post. Risk and reward and all that. Trading in those will not quickly lose you your shirt, but won't make you exactly rich overnight. People do trade with them, however, even though they're nothing but the empty promise of value.
I read the other day that people tend to invest in something, on average, for three to four months. People are not in it for long term stable investments. Everyone is constantly trading to make a quick buck, even in the traditional market.
Just to be clear, I don't own any Bitcoin. I have nothing to gain from it. I just want to be clear on what it is and what it isn't. People pretend that it's something completely new, but it's not that different. It also doesn't take a financial genius to know there will be a large setback sooner or later. People who are into Bitcoin know this. Looking at the handful of months people typically invest, that doesn't have to be a problem.
As always, the trick to speculation is diversifying. If you put everything in Bitcoin you stand to lose most of it.
-
Whatever the case I predict a massive crash as the bubble pops within a year from now, virtually certain within 5 years. It will be interesting to see what people say at that point, whohas not invested in cryptomoney.
:-DD >:D
-
Whatever the case I predict a massive crash as the bubble pops within a year from now, virtually certain within 5 years. It will be interesting to see what people say at that point, whohas not invested in cryptomoney.
:-DD >:D
Again, it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that this volatility goes both ways. I'm convinced most people are very aware of this.
-
Of course, and I expected you would say that :) You must consider the 'scope' of the currency under discussion of course. Bitcoin has a global scope which makes it a bit different.
The point is that to buy a $4 coffee with bitcoin would take some minutes, and would cost $20 or more in fees. There is a trade-off between the fee's you pay and the time it takes. This applies to small amounts to receive too - so if you pay someone $4 for a coffee right now it will cost them $24 to spend that money. The fees are changing all of the time so you could leave home able to buy something but when you get to the shop the fee's have gone up. That is pretty impractical IMHO.
I haven't done a full fee transaction in Bitcoin so I don't know what it the fastest time it can go through. Perhaps it can be fast enough to be useful, but it would cost me $20 USD or more to find out. It does become more practical as the amount of the transaction goes up, as long as that doesn't mean you are not consolidating small amounts into a larger amount.
And yes of course I agree that bitcoin has no inherent value. My point is simply that even if it did have inherent value it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference in the current bubbly situation. The theoretical inherent value of the tulips and the .com shares did not change anything. I think we are both saying the same thing here.
Did you actually check whether you can buy a coffee with Bitcoin? It seems you can buy coffee at Starbucks with Bitcoin at a nominal fee. That's pretty close to regular currency in my book and nowhere near the impractical situation you mention here. Until not long ago Steam also accepted Bitcoin for buying games. That's more convenient and less costly than, say, a person to person wire transfer in the US.
I get that people are wary, and probably rightfully so, but it's not as different as people purport it to be. It's a lot like a currency from a maybe not so stable nation. There's a lot to gain and a lot to lose.
Haha, no I didn't check all of the coffee shops, it was just an example.
Edit: https://foldapp.com/faq
Nothing there about fees that I can see, so the transfer from your wallet into there will attract the current fee. You can of course chose a low fee for the transfer, but it will take a long time to go through, if at all.
My understanding is that the fees are the fees unless you have access to a mining rig and can validate the transaction yourself. Starbucks must be subsidising the transaction for promotional purposes. That is not sustainable obviously.
There is an article in the news here about other companies who have dropped out of bitcoin because it is volatile, no-one is using it and because the fees are so high.
If you have a wallet with bitcoin in it just try it. I just did and the fee for a small purchase, where it is covered by a single transaction in my wallet, comes up as $34 NZD or 23.70 USD. I rounded down to $20 USD to keep it simple as the fees and the exchange rate are changing all of the time.
I _have_ been able to process a transaction at a lower fee than the recommended one - 65 satoshi/byte worked for me - but it took about a week or so to go through. That was a pleasant surprise as at least now I can get my money out of bitcoin without paying an enormous fee.
Since I had saved my bitcoin in small amounts the transaction fee multiplied up to a huge amount. This consolidating transaction was the only option and thankfully it worked.
-
There's way to work around the fees, which is exactly what Starbucks does. I could complain about it being stupidly expensive to wire money to someone else in the US, or I could figure out one of the many ways to do it cheaper. Just to remind people, it's typically something like $20, $25 or even $35 to wire someone money.
Nobody would buy a coffee if they had to pay $20 in fees for a $8 coffee.
-
Whatever the case I predict a massive crash as the bubble pops within a year from now, virtually certain within 5 years. It will be interesting to see what people say at that point, whohas not invested in cryptomoney.
:-DD >:D
Again, it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that this volatility goes both ways. I'm convinced most people are very aware of this.
What I mean by that is, that we are very likely to face the crash of our global usual financial system. And if most are aware of it, I do not know.
-
There's way to work around the fees, which is exactly what Starbucks does. I could complain about it being stupidly expensive to wire money to someone else in the US, or I could figure out one of the many ways to do it cheaper. Just to remind people, it's typically something like $20, $25 or even $35 to wire someone money.
Nobody would buy a coffee if they had to pay $20 in fees for a $8 coffee.
It seems that one buys a Starbucks gift card with bitcoin. It isn't quite the same thing as buying a coffee directly with bitcoin.
To make it work you would need to buy about $100 worth of gift cards at one time, then the discount they give you balances the fee cost.
Fair enough, that might be practical if you drank coffee from Starbucks regularly. It wouldn't have worked in my situation though as I had too many small amounts in my wallet.
-
What I mean by that is, that we are very likely to face the crash of our global usual financial system. And if most are aware of it, I do not know.
Sooner or later you'll inevitably be right. Now if you could be specific, that would be much more interesting, and not quite as easy.
-
It seems that one buys a Starbucks gift card with bitcoin. It isn't quite the same thing as buying a coffee directly with bitcoin.
To make it work you would need to buy about $100 worth of gift cards at one time, then the discount they give you balances the fee cost.
Fair enough, that might be practical if you drank coffee from Starbucks regularly. It wouldn't have worked in my situation though as I had too many small amounts in my wallet.
The argument was that you can't buy a coffee with Bitcoin. In reality, it's easier and cheaper to buy coffee with Bitcoin than it is to wire someone the same money. That's not bad.
-
It seems that one buys a Starbucks gift card with bitcoin. It isn't quite the same thing as buying a coffee directly with bitcoin.
To make it work you would need to buy about $100 worth of gift cards at one time, then the discount they give you balances the fee cost.
Fair enough, that might be practical if you drank coffee from Starbucks regularly. It wouldn't have worked in my situation though as I had too many small amounts in my wallet.
The argument was that you can't buy a coffee with Bitcoin. In reality, it's easier and cheaper to buy coffee with Bitcoin than it is to wire someone the same money. That's not bad.
To be fair my point was actually that it was impractical to buy coffee with bitcoin. Reading back now I did make the mistake of wording that incorrectly, which you have picked up on - fair enough it was my mistake.
Do you think bitcoin is a practical currency, or did you just want to call me out on that particular point?
-
To be fair my point was actually that it was impractical to buy coffee with bitcoin. Reading back now I did make the mistake of wording that incorrectly, which you have picked up on - fair enough it was my mistake.
Do you think bitcoin is a practical currency, or did you just want to call me out on that particular point?
I'm not out to score points, just to discuss what I think was said. I thought the original point made was that you can't actually use Bitcoin. I see various places where you can, and people are also actually using it in those places. Is it as practical as the local currency? Certainly not. Is it more practical than anything but the local currency? That it does seem to be.
If you had to survive a month and had nothing but a handful of Bitcoin, and couldn't convert it to conventional currency, it seems to me that you would be fine, even if it takes a bit more effort to get things done.
-
What I mean by that is, that we are very likely to face the crash of our global usual financial system. And if most are aware of it, I do not know.
Sooner or later you'll inevitably be right. Now if you could be specific, that would be much more interesting, and not quite as easy.
The question was, what is the difference to specify that interest more to cryptocash or money as we know. We should give that independence "money" a chance, before that will happen. We should use it now, so that it will work in the future. That's the point, not to prove that today we can't buy a coffee.
-
To be fair my point was actually that it was impractical to buy coffee with bitcoin. Reading back now I did make the mistake of wording that incorrectly, which you have picked up on - fair enough it was my mistake.
Do you think bitcoin is a practical currency, or did you just want to call me out on that particular point?
I'm not out to score points, just to discuss what I think was said. I thought the original point made was that you can't actually use Bitcoin. I see various places where you can, and people are also actually using it in those places. Is it as practical as the local currency? Certainly not. Is it more practical than anything but the local currency? That it does seem to be.
If you had to survive a month and had nothing but a handful of Bitcoin, and couldn't convert it to conventional currency, it seems to me that you would be fine, even if it takes a bit more effort to get things done.
Yes that is where I have confused the issue. My point is that the entire monstrosity is impractical as a currency, and the difficulty around small transactions is just one of the issues. Consider the huge electricity consumption as well and I cannot see how it can continue.
Maybe there are options in the US to spend bitcoin - I assume that is where you are given you brought up Starbucks. You certainly wouldn't survive here in NZ on bitcoin alone - even the Starbucks promo is limited to certain countries, and NZ isn't on the list. Without converting it to another currency, or finding a person to act as a proxy, I don't think I could purchase anything here.
I gather you haven't played directly with Bitcoin. I would actually give you $20 NZD worth of bitcoin just so you could experience first hand what it is like, but like I said earlier it would cost me about $20 USD to send it to you. Then it would cost you $20 USD each time you spend any part of it somewhere else.
FWIW I am trying to cash in my rather small bitcoin stash. Even that is turning out to be painful. The company that I got the from have just conjured up a minimum purchase limit which I am just below.
Assuming I do manage to sell them to someone else, my wallet will be left with about $20 in it which was not part of my consolidating transaction. This means that it attracts a fee on its own, and since the fee is larger than the amount left in the wallet I will just have to leave it there...
-
To be fair my point was actually that it was impractical to buy coffee with bitcoin. Reading back now I did make the mistake of wording that incorrectly, which you have picked up on - fair enough it was my mistake.
Do you think bitcoin is a practical currency, or did you just want to call me out on that particular point?
I'm not out to score points, just to discuss what I think was said. I thought the original point made was that you can't actually use Bitcoin. I see various places where you can, and people are also actually using it in those places. Is it as practical as the local currency? Certainly not. Is it more practical than anything but the local currency? That it does seem to be.
If you had to survive a month and had nothing but a handful of Bitcoin, and couldn't convert it to conventional currency, it seems to me that you would be fine, even if it takes a bit more effort to get things done.
Yes that is where I have confused the issue. My point is that the entire monstrosity is impractical as a currency, and the difficulty around small transactions is just one of the issues. Consider the huge electricity consumption as well and I cannot see how it can continue.
Maybe there are options in the US to spend bitcoin - I assume that is where you are given you brought up Starbucks. You certainly wouldn't survive here in NZ on bitcoin alone - even the Starbucks promo is limited to certain countries, and NZ isn't on the list. Without converting it to another currency, or finding a person to act as a proxy, I don't think I could purchase anything here.
I gather you haven't played directly with Bitcoin. I would actually give you $20 NZD worth of bitcoin just so you could experience first hand what it is like, but like I said earlier it would cost me about $20 USD to send it to you. Then it would cost you $20 USD each time you spend any part of it somewhere else.
FWIW I am trying to cash in my rather small bitcoin stash. Even that is turning out to be painful. The company that I got the from have just conjured up a minimum purchase limit which I am just below.
Assuming I do manage to sell them to someone else, my wallet will be left with about $20 in it which was not part of my consolidating transaction. This means that it attracts a fee on its own, and since the fee is larger than the amount left in the wallet I will just have to leave it there...
So, to sum up, it's as much use as a pair of Dingo's kidneys ??................ :popcorn:
Must admit, it is keeping AMD afloat though ;)
I cannot imagine trying to use any of it here in Portugal. They would simply laugh at you. It is hard enough paying by debit card here !. ;) ::) :-//
We use cash for everything apart from on-line purchases and bookings. Personally I prefer it that way. :-+
-
To be fair my point was actually that it was impractical to buy coffee with bitcoin. Reading back now I did make the mistake of wording that incorrectly, which you have picked up on - fair enough it was my mistake.
Do you think bitcoin is a practical currency, or did you just want to call me out on that particular point?
I'm not out to score points, just to discuss what I think was said. I thought the original point made was that you can't actually use Bitcoin. I see various places where you can, and people are also actually using it in those places. Is it as practical as the local currency? Certainly not. Is it more practical than anything but the local currency? That it does seem to be.
If you had to survive a month and had nothing but a handful of Bitcoin, and couldn't convert it to conventional currency, it seems to me that you would be fine, even if it takes a bit more effort to get things done.
Yes that is where I have confused the issue. My point is that the entire monstrosity is impractical as a currency, and the difficulty around small transactions is just one of the issues. Consider the huge electricity consumption as well and I cannot see how it can continue.
Maybe there are options in the US to spend bitcoin - I assume that is where you are given you brought up Starbucks. You certainly wouldn't survive here in NZ on bitcoin alone - even the Starbucks promo is limited to certain countries, and NZ isn't on the list. Without converting it to another currency, or finding a person to act as a proxy, I don't think I could purchase anything here.
I gather you haven't played directly with Bitcoin. I would actually give you $20 NZD worth of bitcoin just so you could experience first hand what it is like, but like I said earlier it would cost me about $20 USD to send it to you. Then it would cost you $20 USD each time you spend any part of it somewhere else.
FWIW I am trying to cash in my rather small bitcoin stash. Even that is turning out to be painful. The company that I got the from have just conjured up a minimum purchase limit which I am just below.
Assuming I do manage to sell them to someone else, my wallet will be left with about $20 in it which was not part of my consolidating transaction. This means that it attracts a fee on its own, and since the fee is larger than the amount left in the wallet I will just have to leave it there...
So, to sum up, it's as much use as a pair of Dingo's kidneys ??................ :popcorn:
Haha yep, a skinny, undernourished dingo with worms.
-
Do you think bitcoin is a practical currency, or did you just want to call me out on that particular point?
I just mis-read that as "a practice currency", which I think just about nicely sums up what I think of it.
-
Do you think bitcoin is a practical currency, or did you just want to call me out on that particular point?
I just mis-read that as "a practice currency", which I think just about nicely sums up what I think of it.
Yup, nailed it. That is exactly what I am treating it like. :-+
-
I gather you haven't played directly with Bitcoin. I would actually give you $20 NZD worth of bitcoin just so you could experience first hand what it is like, but like I said earlier it would cost me about $20 USD to send it to you. Then it would cost you $20 USD each time you spend any part of it somewhere else.
Are you sure the transaction costs are so high? My Litecoin wallet lets me choose how much I pay for a transaction (can be zero) and the default seems to track the exchange rate.
-
the latest research............. :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRItzSX0aCM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRItzSX0aCM)
-
I gather you haven't played directly with Bitcoin. I would actually give you $20 NZD worth of bitcoin just so you could experience first hand what it is like, but like I said earlier it would cost me about $20 USD to send it to you. Then it would cost you $20 USD each time you spend any part of it somewhere else.
Are you sure the transaction costs are so high? My Litecoin wallet lets me choose how much I pay for a transaction (can be zero) and the default seems to track the exchange rate.
It's a tradeoff between how much you pay and how long it takes to process the transaction.
For my 'consolidating transaction', which I sent to myself, combined 9 small amounts into 1 larger amount I chose a low fee. That took a week or so to process at 65 satoshi per byte. The cost of the fee in real money was about 15 or 20 USD roughly.
So it is possible to get a transaction processed with a low fee. It just takes a very long time - not ideal when the value is so volatile. Because I paid myself the volatility didn't matter. It is apparently possible that the transaction might have never been processed and my money stuck in limbo, or it could 'time out'. Not ideal either if you paying someone for something.
As I write this the fees have shot up even more. They were around 400 satoshi/byte, now it is 780. So the fees are now double what they were for a fast transaction.
Fee pricing ladder - helps you figure out what fee to use:
https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/
Historical fee graphs:
https://bitcoinfees.info/
-
I gather you haven't played directly with Bitcoin. I would actually give you $20 NZD worth of bitcoin just so you could experience first hand what it is like, but like I said earlier it would cost me about $20 USD to send it to you. Then it would cost you $20 USD each time you spend any part of it somewhere else.
Are you sure the transaction costs are so high? My Litecoin wallet lets me choose how much I pay for a transaction (can be zero) and the default seems to track the exchange rate.
He's focusing on bitcoin only. Other cryptocurrencies have different transaction rates.
-
This concept has been explained before by multiple people on this thread, but it is worth repeating and explaining in slightly different terms.
None of the existing "crypto-currencies" can function as a currency for the simple reason that they are appreciating rapidly. A currency is a tool to mediate transactions, and if it doesn't work for all types of transactions it is a limited or useless tool. Now consider lending/borrowing money using one of these "crypto-currencies". As a borrower am I willing to pay back a borrowed bitcoin with a bitcoin in the future (plus some fraction of a bitcoin as interest?) Of course not, because the value is presumed to have appreciated greatly. Same problem from the lenders end. How much do I have to discount the payback to convince someone to borrow money and then pay interest on it?
Economists argue about the exact numbers, but any currency that changes value by more than a few percent a year becomes a terrible tool for mediating transactions and rapidly falls out of favor. The most common problem is inflationary change (currency value dropping) and has been demonstrated in many places. The Deutchmark of the Weimar Republic. The Boliviano of the 1960s. The Zimbabwe dollar a few years ago. Deflationary change is also possible and the US dollar after 1929 is an example. The real world examples of deflationary currencies are all associated with terrible economic dislocations even though the deflation involved was far weaker than the deflation of bitcoin.
-
To quote Adam Chalmers? (@adam_chal)
Bitcoin was supposed to demonstrate the power of a true free market. Instead it's full of scams, rent-seekers, theft, useless for real purchases and accelerates climate change. Mission accomplished,[/]
Ok, but an un-free market shows the same symptoms.
Let's compare freeness of the market with the levels of the symptoms the quote shows.
I expect an inverse proportional relationship, with a highly unlinear behavior at the extremes.
Difficult one is to define who will be the policeman to keep the free market "free"
I know a lot of organisations who declare to have good intentions on that ...
-
I've not read through the whole of this thread but maybe my thread on HashGraph would be useful (Warning: The video's are around an hour long each but well worth persevereing with).
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hashgraph/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hashgraph/)
-
To quote Adam Chalmers? (@adam_chal)
Bitcoin was supposed to demonstrate the power of a true free market. Instead it's full of scams, rent-seekers, theft, useless for real purchases and accelerates climate change. Mission accomplished,[/]
Ok, but an un-free market shows the same symptoms.
Let's compare freeness of the market with the levels of the symptoms the quote shows.
I expect an inverse proportional relationship, with a highly unlinear behavior at the extremes.
Difficult one is to define who will be the policeman to keep the free market "free"
I know a lot of organisations who declare to have good intentions on that ...
That all has little to do with the currency of choice and more to do with human nature. Greed is a natural human trait, there will always be some out there who are driven to acquire more, and who will gladly take advantage of or step on anyone in their path to get it. An entirely free market with no controls whatsoever will eventually result in a small number of people possessing a majority of the assets.
-
I've not read through the whole of this thread but maybe my thread on HashGraph would be useful (Warning: The video's are around an hour long each but well worth persevereing with).
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hashgraph/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hashgraph/)
lost me at "patented"
next
-
I've thought about getting on board but it seems exceedingly complicated. I see videos about wallets and trading crypto currencies but haven't yet found the basic information covering how you use real world currency to buy crypto currency. I found a few exchanges that say they handle the main half dozen ones people hear about (mainly Bitcoin and its derivatives, Ethereum, and LiteCoin) but seldom any other digital currencies. I recently discovered a web page that had a list of over 1200 crypto currencies. With so many it seems all a bit like one is gambling where you are more likely to lose money than win.
-
I've thought about getting on board but it seems exceedingly complicated. I see videos about wallets and trading crypto currencies but haven't yet found the basic information covering how you use real world currency to buy crypto currency. I found a few exchanges that say they handle the main half dozen ones people hear about (mainly Bitcoin and its derivatives, Ethereum, and LiteCoin) but seldom any other digital currencies. I recently discovered a web page that had a list of over 1200 crypto currencies. With so many it seems all a bit like one is gambling where you are more likely to lose money than win.
I guess it depends on how you approach it. I simply signed up for an account with an Australian market and I can buy and sell crypto easily. Any withdrawals I make are in my bank account the following day. No, I can't walk down the road and buy a coffee with Ripple, but I can easily turn that Ripple into cash.
I think any crypto which is trying to replace regular currency is doomed to fail, you may as well buy baseball cards. To understand each Crypto, you need to read about the specific crypto you have in mind. Just because you may understand how Bitocoin works, doesn't meant that knowledge translates over to others. If you look at the 2nd largest crypto, Ripple (XRP), it actually has purpose and is much more than "just a coin". It's like comparing cash to loaves of bread. Both can be traded but both have very different applications.
There are a lot of useless coins out there that someone created "just because" that do very little (and I'll lump Litecoin and Bitcoin derivatives into that basket).
If you're looking somewhere to start, might I suggest reading up about Ripple, Ethereum, and IOTA. All three have some very real-world applications (and in the case of Ripple, huge corporate backing). I would personally avoid Bitcoin, it really doesn't "do" much, it's over-priced, over-hyped and you chances of making any real money (as an investment) are slim, yet your chances of losing significant sums of cash are huge. There is a rumour that Coinbase will be adding Ripple to its offerings very soon (despite what you might read on the internet, nothing has been confirmed for any official source, but they'd be silly not to).
-
I've thought about getting on board but it seems exceedingly complicated. I see videos about wallets and trading crypto currencies but haven't yet found the basic information covering how you use real world currency to buy crypto currency. I found a few exchanges that say they handle the main half dozen ones people hear about (mainly Bitcoin and its derivatives, Ethereum, and LiteCoin) but seldom any other digital currencies. I recently discovered a web page that had a list of over 1200 crypto currencies. With so many it seems all a bit like one is gambling where you are more likely to lose money than win.
Depends upon the country you are in.
You basically have the transfer money into the exchanges bank account, and it really is best if that is local exchange in your country.
In Oz for example you might use Coinspot.
-
On Board - No.
Bored - Yes
-
Sites like Coinmarketcap can tell you which coins (and tokens) are most "popular" and how they're trending:
Link: https://coinmarketcap.com/
Wallets like Exodus or Jaxx can handle multiple wallets through simple interfaces but you could in principle also make separate wallets for each ... let's say first 20 coins from that list.
-
Look at this,
some thoughts about the Blockchain-AI and the makers behind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSn7Iomisyc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSn7Iomisyc)
and actually, what happens with this AI (->Tyler) when it become really dangerous
(warning, some toxic politicals 'Tyler is Q Anon' inside, for those, who follows Trumps "Storm" edit: at 4chan, 8chan, right now):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4ihlWZYMlE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4ihlWZYMlE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzklNhzGWJg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzklNhzGWJg)
-
I think one of the greatest evils of cryptocoins is how many researchers it has caused to sell their soul. I'm sure they rationalize it, humans are good at that ... but in the end why they connect their name to a new coin is not because they think they can make a contribution, but because their name will give the ICO value and they get coins at the ground floor.
It's like HFT, absorbing our greatest minds to utterly waste their time.
-
I just wish I'd bought a few when it started. Though, the fact that you could become a millionaire by so ridiculously simple a route does make a mockery of the value of real money, and also a mockery of the work ethic. >:D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0)
-
I mined some mooncoin 4 years ago. Lost like 2/3 of that on collapsed exchange because did not bother to take that out for some time as it was barely worth anything. But last month is started to grow rapidly and doubled in price just in last day. Now I have worth of $17k :o and it keeps growing.
-
* Hopefully too many didn't loose his/her savings on this latest bubble. ???
I just did read a new term for cryptos ... kryptonite currencies. Bigger fools game and that the energy production need to double if the popularity of the cryptos continues as now. :-DD
I'll stay in traditional investments.
-
* Hopefully too many didn't loose his/her savings on this latest bubble. ???
I'm still up about 400%... :shrug:
-
* Hopefully too many didn't loose his/her savings on this latest bubble. ???
I'm still up about 400%... :shrug:
I already made a lot more than I invested on mining equipment. I did have one crypto (Perk) drop to practically nothing not too long from a peak. I only lost about $15 worth of coins that were waiting to be exchanged, since I followed an "expert's" suggestion to exchange often.
What I do see is that mining is becoming more of a fun thing to do than a great investment. At least on the last peak I experienced, I got something to show for it!
-
Gonna be glad when the dust settles. Perhaps now I can finally get some good new video cards at $399 instead of $699. Remember only put in what you can afford to lose. ;)
As for cryptocurrency itself. It'll rebound but without bitcoin. Look forward to a brand thats a little bit more institutionally backed/invested in the 2nd phase as ironic as that sounds.
-
That curve is nice, it actually represents pretty accurately all the bubbles I have seen so far (y2k to this date).
-
A cryptocurrency will succeed when someone figures out a way to make the value relatively stable. People won't be making much money from trading the currency itself at that point but it will be potentially useful as a method of transferring value, which is what a currency is designed to be.
-
A cryptocurrency will succeed when someone figures out a way to make the value relatively stable. People won't be making much money from trading the currency itself at that point but it will be potentially useful as a method of transferring value, which is what a currency is designed to be.
Several of the coins I have mined had their values moderated by exchanges, but if a few exchanges control it, how decentralized is it really?
-
A cryptocurrency will succeed when someone figures out a way to make the value relatively stable. People won't be making much money from trading the currency itself at that point but it will be potentially useful as a method of transferring value, which is what a currency is designed to be.
That's not that hard. the concept Tether regardless of all the shenanigans can work just fine. The real problem is that governments at some point will simply come down on it like a ton of bricks, even if you try to do it with say gold instead of the dollar.
-
As for cryptocurrency itself. It'll rebound but without bitcoin. Look forward to a brand thats a little bit more institutionally backed/invested in the 2nd phase as ironic as that sounds.
I've been saying this for months. When I talk about Crypto, people immediately mention "Bitcoin" which I follow up with "I'm not touching it with a barge pole". This is the adjustment many were predicting and many others said "wouldn't" happen. Sadly, I think Bitcoin is here to stay, at least as a "brand", but there have been many, MANY losers from the Bitcoin crash and they are unlikely to recover anytime soon (if ever).
Many of those who invested in the "smarter" currencies have still come out on top (for the most part). Now that the masses have realised Bitcoin was a terrible idea in recent times, they'll start to look elsewhere. Do you homework, try to ignore the white noise and look at alternatives such as Ethereum, Ripple and Iota (among others).
HELPFUL WORD OF ADVICE FOR ANYONE JUST STARTING OUT IN CRYPTO: Forget Bitcoin, even if you're thinking of mining it (unless decent equipment, power etc... are completely free for you).
-
Do you homework, try to ignore the white noise and look at alternatives such as Ethereum, Ripple and Iota (among others).
I don't do homework, I do common sense. Here's a few facts about cryptocurrencies :
- The moment the remaining wire-transfer and credit card connections between cryptocurrencies and real currencies are removed by first world nations, cryptocurrencies are dead. It can not sustain itself on face to face currency exchange and wire transfer in off shore nations (who would be quickly be brought to heel, or be themselves cut off from international wire transfers).
- There are no legal use cases for cryptocurrencies which couldn't be more efficiently served by a centralized entity, if it wasn't for balkanized financial regulations and their overhead. Yes cryptocurrencies "avoid" those regulations, but they can do that only as long as the first world abides it (see above). They provide nothing E-Gold didn't, with the same criminal consequences, just this time without a central party to sue into oblivion. Just like E-Gold, governments will get fed up with it at some point.
Cryptocurrency is coasting on a phantom of respectability created by the lies of people to get rich, among which many highly educated people. You might get rich by people believing those lies but you shouldn't believe them yourself. Go into it with both eyes open.
-
Do you homework, try to ignore the white noise and look at alternatives such as Ethereum, Ripple and Iota (among others).
I don't do homework, I do common sense. Here's a few facts about cryptocurrencies :
- The moment the remaining wire-transfer and credit card connections between cryptocurrencies and real currencies are removed by first world nations, cryptocurrencies are dead. It can not sustain itself on face to face currency exchange and wire transfer in off shore nations (who would be quickly be brought to heel, or be themselves cut off from international wire transfers).
There is no need to 'remove' the connections, they just need to adhere to the same standards and rules as everyone else. This is done using regulation.
The same thing exists (here) for all other types of 'exchanges' to real currency, e.g. insurance payouts, so it is common sense that the same should also be done for crypto exchanges.
For example, from the local regulations for AML/CFT for financial institutions:
* Require customer due diligence to be carried out on anonymous accounts
...
* Prescribe annual reporting requirements.
-
There is no need to 'remove' the connections, they just need to adhere to the same standards and rules as everyone else.
The exchanges can and do know their customer and all that other crap, they are localised (something like coinbase only operates in a limited set of nations for instance). The blockchain however knows bugger all about its customers. Sure, it's not a legal person and it's distributed so it has a good excuse. Governments don't have to listen to even good excuses though. I don't think they should either, cryptocurrencies are a hive of scum and villainy. Cut them off at the knees, the electronic connections to real currencies.
-
There is no need to 'remove' the connections, they just need to adhere to the same standards and rules as everyone else.
The exchanges can and do know their customer and all that other crap, they are localised (something like coinbase only operates in a limited set of nations for instance). The blockchain however knows bugger all about its customers. Sure, it's not a legal person and it's distributed so it has a good excuse. Governments don't have to listen to even good excuses though. I don't think they should either, cryptocurrencies are a hive of scum and villainy. Cut them off at the knees, the electronic connections to real currencies.
Yes exactly - so regulation is no problem as it is just a case of reporting what they already know. Although they will need to meet a certain standard of confirming identity which may or may not be a change.
As long as the conversions to/from real currency are tracked then the blockchain is not important.
However due to its nature, blockchain provides the ability to follow a transaction from source to destination, as it is a public ledger and cannot be altered. This is not the case for other types of transaction so the blockchain is _more_ traceable than other methods of exchanging money.
-
This is not generally correct. Tracing is only simple if source and final destination is 1 hop. As soon as you insert an intermediary who split the initial transaction in parts, things become complicated. The intermediary may transact with bunch of other nodes, so you won' know to who the source money went in the end and in how many pieces.
Also there are blockchains like Monero that were specifically designed to provide privacy of transactions, read: non traceability.
-
This is not generally correct. Tracing is only simple if source and final destination is 1 hop. As soon as you insert an intermediary who split the initial transaction in parts, things become complicated. The intermediary may transact with bunch of other nodes, so you won' know to who the source money went in the end and in how many pieces.
Also there are blockchains like Monero that were specifically designed to provide privacy of transactions, read: non traceability.
Yes I agree. I wasn't very clear - I didn't mean that all transactions could be fully traced. I just meant that there is more traceability than is provided by other types of financial transaction.
-
Yes exactly - so regulation is no problem as it is just a case of reporting what they already know.
With something stable like Tether, ignoring the shenanigans, criminals can simply de-link from the exchanges for a while and deal only on the blockchain. Eventually they have to launder it, but in the mean time they have a currency with pseudonimity, which is far easier to transfer than cash. Especially across borders.
You can't just transfer a million dollars without payer/payee information on file and a risk assessment by the service providers if it's done with traditional currency and wire transfer. On the blockchain it's just another transaction. Or more likely, a couple thousand transactions ... no one to connect them all to a single person after all, not while things stay on the blockchain.
-
Yes exactly - so regulation is no problem as it is just a case of reporting what they already know.
With something stable like Tether, ignoring the shenanigans, criminals can simply de-link from the exchanges for a while and deal only on the blockchain. Eventually they have to launder it, but in the mean time they have a currency with pseudonimity, which is far easier to transfer than cash. Especially across borders.
You can't just transfer a million dollars without payer/payee information on file and a risk assessment by the service providers if it's done with traditional currency and wire transfer. On the blockchain it's just another transaction. Or more likely, a couple thousand transactions ... no one to connect them all to a single person after all, not while things stay on the blockchain.
Yes you could send money which is already in crypto to a dodgy country with no oversight, and they could convert it out of crypto to cash using a local exchange.
However once the reporting starts you won't be able to convert local money to crypto, nor convert any crypto to local money back without getting caught in the net.
That's how the AML tracking works now IMHO - it monitors the 'endpoints' and not the transaction internals. I don't see how this is any different for crypto.
-
I keep thinking I must be missing something about all this blockchain "coin" stuff.. I mean, I understand the basic idea, I just don't see how it's that valuable.
Now I'm thinking, maybe I should put a few hundred in to have a play and get a feel for what it's like to use? At least that's a learning experience I guess.
Good to see the discussion here, because yeah, I also feel Bitcoin's days are numbered. Guess I'll look into some of the others.
-
Now I'm thinking, maybe I should put a few hundred in to have a play and get a feel for what it's like to use? At least that's a learning experience I guess.
Good to see the discussion here, because yeah, I also feel Bitcoin's days are numbered. Guess I'll look into some of the others.
Ethereum is poised to take over #1, an event called "the flippening", it will likely happen later this year. Eth has very few of the drawbacks that bitcoin does, namely speed, fees, etc., and it's significantly more flexible. It's what I've been focusing on (not with any "real" money though, started with $1k back in July when it was $200/ea), and it's been interesting. We're currently pulling out of a big dip, yesterday would have been the time to buy, but if it keeps rising it won't matter too much.
-
- There are no legal use cases for cryptocurrencies which couldn't be more efficiently served by a centralized entity, if it wasn't for balkanized financial regulations and their overhead. Yes cryptocurrencies "avoid" those regulations, but they can do that only as long as the first world abides it (see above). They provide nothing E-Gold didn't, with the same criminal consequences, just this time without a central party to sue into oblivion. Just like E-Gold, governments will get fed up with it at some point.
What about where decentralization is the desired feature? One example is an in game "currency" that does not depend on any centralized service being online to work, yet is very resistant to cheating.
Cryptocurrencies also makes a great way for individuals to turn computing power into money. I remember some service that "borrowed" your computing resources in order to earn credits that can be used to buy music, with the goal of cutting down piracy, actually gave it a try back in the day (in a VM since I did not trust its security or lack of it), but it never caught on. Some cryptocurrencies like Curecoin/Foldingcoin and Gridcoin actually do useful work outside the cryptocurrency system itself.
-
Ethereum is poised to take over #1, an event called "the flippening", it will likely happen later this year.
that sounds like fun!
-
Indeed.
Ethereum used to be sitting at around less than a third of bitcoin's market share before the start of this year , now it's almost half the market share of bitcoin. We're talking $12 billion vs $5.5 billion for Ethereum.
Unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum is also transitioning to a mixed POW/POS system, where at the start (in a few months) part of the blockchain will still be mined, while a part (probably less than 20%) will use proof-of-stake to validate transactions, and this is the building block for implementing sharding which will scale the number of transactions possible and make it possible to massively parallelize the creating of the blockchain (scale up transactions per second, less bad blocks mined, etc).
Now I'm thinking, maybe I should put a few hundred in to have a play and get a feel for what it's like to use? At least that's a learning experience I guess.
Good to see the discussion here, because yeah, I also feel Bitcoin's days are numbered. Guess I'll look into some of the others.
Ethereum is poised to take over #1, an event called "the flippening", it will likely happen later this year. Eth has very few of the drawbacks that bitcoin does, namely speed, fees, etc., and it's significantly more flexible. It's what I've been focusing on (not with any "real" money though, started with $1k back in July when it was $200/ea), and it's been interesting. We're currently pulling out of a big dip, yesterday would have been the time to buy, but if it keeps rising it won't matter too much.
-
Hi, I just find a new Coin ICO and it's called pm7 and for start it's giving 20$ bonus!
http://pm7.pm/ico/50652de9 (http://pm7.pm/ico/50652de9)
what is ICO? :-//
-
Initial Coin Offering.
The first step in the process of separating a sucker from their money.
I actually agree with you there. There are over 1000 cryptos out there, the vast majority have already or will fail. Only invest in a project if you truly believe it's revolutionary, because those are the only ones that survive. Pm7 looks like nothing more than an MLM/pyramid scheme. I'd be amazed if it actually survives to the end of the year.
-
ICOs are so associated with scams that some cryptocurrencies (including one that I have been mining for over 2 years) specifically advertise "no ICO".
-
A great use of blockchains is to be able to store a hash of a document containing a concept or invention so that you can prove a date of your idea in the future. This way, you can keep your idea totally secret, but still have solid proof of the date of the document.
There is at least one coin, Namecoin, that lets you store a 520 character string record. Namecoin is a fork of Bitcoin from 2011. The problem is you have to pay 0.01 Namecoins for a record and it has to be renewed every 200 days or it expires. This fee goes to miners who are essentially storing your records in their blockchains. I have no idea if this coin becomes uneconomical just like Bitcoin if its value grows like Bitcoin. It would be useless if it starts to cost hundreds of dollars per idea every 200 days.
There is something called Loci Coin designed to "revolutionize the Patent industry", but the costs were way to high to be bothered.
Are there any current major coins that somehow let you store a small string of data? A 256 bit hash could be stored as hex in 64 bytes of data and you could reduce this more to 42 bytes.
-
Any reason for having the records expire? Once in the blockchain, it's there "forever".
-
Any reason for having the records expire? Once in the blockchain, it's there "forever".
I agree, but that was how Namecoin was designed. They do not expire the transactions - just the 520byte records.
-
I gather I wasn't quite right about Namecoin. You pay 0.01 Namecoins to register a name and that name can have multiple records. The maximum space has to be less then a block size which I think is 1MByte. The coin used to store records is blocked from being transferable so you cannot accidentally use it for cash.
They only changed about 400 bytes from the Bitcoin code in 2011, so it would appear to have all the Bitcoin problems. So if it reaches $100K per coin, I guess you will be paying $100 per transaction. I don't know if the 0.01 Namecoin is fixed, or if it decreases as the coin difficulty increases.
-
There used to be a cryptocurrency (Realbucks) designed so that if an account is abandoned for a long time (6 months?), the coins in it would be eligible to be "remined". They traded the problem of "lost" coins with the far worse idea that coins "expire". Not surprisingly, it didn't even last long enough for that rule to have any effect. I did make a decent amount mining it while it lasted, exchanging it often for obvious reasons.
-
Are there any current major coins that somehow let you store a small string of data? A 256 bit hash could be stored as hex in 64 bytes of data and you could reduce this more to 42 bytes.
All of them? The usual way to store the timestamps is to aggregate a whole bunch though.
Opentimestamp and Originstamp have servers to do this for free, Originstamp also publishes to twitter.
PS. I guess some don't keep a complete transaction ledger, like Nano, so they wouldn't work.
-
Any reason for having the records expire? Once in the blockchain, it's there "forever".
Proving something mathematically almost certainly true, and proving something legally true is completely different.
IANAL, but I would think a copy of the design sent to a lawyer in a postmarked letter is far.more legal proof than a hash of your design file stored in any block chain (if you ever were able to find your file with the matching hash!).
You will have a very hard time cutting lawyers out of the equation, as such.things are matters of law :-//
-
What I am looking for is a way to timestamp every seemingly insignificant document that might relate to a novel idea for a few cents that might one day be important. It could include photos, evidence of prototypes, etc.
I am sure if you are sending a lawyer thousands of registered letters every year, they might want more then a few cents.
When RCA tried to sue Philo T. Farnsworth for violating their TV Camera invention patent, Philo was extremely lucky in that his school teacher not only remembered the idea he had as a young boy at school, but the teacher was able to draw from memory the idea in front of the judge. RCA ended up owing Philo for the TV camera invention.
We just now have something better, cheaper and quicker then a teacher with a great memory.